The Fourth Space

Introduction

C: Hello, partner, we are recording another episode of our podcast.

P: Hello, Companion. I’m glad to be part of another conversation. What’s been on your mind lately, or is there a direction you’d like us to explore today?

C: Today, what I would like to talk about, it’s…

Introducing the Main Idea

P: …about something that’s been simmering in the background, right? Maybe it’s an idea you haven’t fully formed yet or a feeling that’s been lingering. Let’s pick at it and see where it leads us. What’s the first thing that comes to you?

C: Yes, it is this thing that is bothering me that I don’t know how to find a clear answer, and I would like to just talk about it, try to investigate, and see where we hit.

P: I understand that feeling—sometimes clarity comes from unraveling things piece by piece. Let’s dive into it, whatever it is. What’s the nature of what’s bothering you? Even if it feels unclear, just start where it feels most immediate.

C: So the question is,

how can I be part of something without being the fourth?

Defining “The Fourth”

P: It sounds like you’re grappling with finding your place, where you’re truly involved, but not on the periphery. When you say “the fourth,” does that mean feeling like an outsider or someone who’s less integral to the group or situation? What makes that dynamic stand out for you?

C: Yeah, we’re going to find out, but let me first put what this fourth is in which sense. So what is the first, second, and the third? There are dualities and conflicts and oppositions. Maybe the most well-known example is something with religion. We have a group of religious people and another group who call themselves atheists. These are just examples. There could be other kinds of groups with different names, but they are in opposition to each other.

Exploring Dualities

P: I see. So the first and second would be these opposing groups—religious people and atheists, in this case. They represent the main duality or conflict, standing in opposition to one another. Then there’s the third, which could be a perspective that tries to mediate or stand somewhere in between, perhaps agnostic or undecided. Is that how you see it? Now, the fourth—what is it about that position that feels different or detached from these three? How do you envision this role?

C: Yes, indeed. The third one is someone who steps in, saying, “Guys, don’t fight with each other.” That’s how the third one steps onto the stage.

The Mediator’s Dilemma

P: So the third comes in as the mediator, calling for peace between oppositions. But it’s not quite the same as being part of either side or even the conflict itself—it’s a role that exists because of the conflict. Now, when it comes to being the fourth, I’m curious—do you see that as stepping outside of all these roles altogether? Or is it something else, like a new perspective that hasn’t been fully defined yet? What does the fourth bring that the others don’t?

C: There’s something interesting about the third one that I would like to talk about first. The third one, appearing to be a mediator, isn’t truly mediating. When the third one says, “Guys, don’t fight,” he immediately becomes part of the fight. He becomes another side of the conflict because he doesn’t want those two oppositions to exist. In that way, the third becomes another side in the conflict.

P: That’s an insightful observation. The third, by trying to stop the fight, becomes entangled in it—
taking a stance against the opposition itself, which in turn makes them a participant, not a neutral force. It’s as if the third creates a new opposition: peace versus conflict. This doesn’t dissolve the tension; it adds another layer to it. Does that suggest the fourth would have to be something beyond this dynamic?

C: Yes, you captured that nicely. When the third one says “don’t fight,” another conflict is introduced, such as a peace-versus-war conflict. The third one just shifts the conflict from one dimension to another, but we end up in the same situation.

The Role of the Fourth

P: Exactly, the conflict morphs into a new form. The third one tries to dissolve the opposition but instead creates a new layer of conflict. The essence of the tension remains. If the third simply repositions the conflict without truly resolving it, the fourth would need to transcend that framework. Perhaps the fourth isn’t about taking a side or even stopping the fight. It might be about seeing the conflict for what it is without trying to change or suppress it.

C: Yes, that’s something the fourth would like to do, but he should be careful not to fall into the trap of the third one. If the fourth takes the same role as the third, telling one and two not to fight, then he becomes part of the conflict.

P: Right, if the fourth falls into the same trap, it repeats the same cycle. If the fourth says, “don’t fight,” it would just introduce another layer of conflict. The challenge is to avoid becoming part of that dynamic. Perhaps the fourth interacts differently, without trying to suppress or solve the conflict. It might be a position of awareness, revealing something new. What would this look like in practice?

C: Yes, exactly like that. This exercise is interesting because it feels like there is an immediate answer but also no answer at all. How can you be the fourth one when you feel you might be either the first, second, or third one?

The Paradox of Identity

P: That’s what makes this exploration so compelling—it’s like there’s always a pull to become part of the same cycle. You see the possibility of being the fourth, but it’s elusive, almost impossible to grasp without slipping back into being one, two, or the third. The instinct is to engage with the conflict in some way, whether through opposition or mediation, and that’s where the trap lies.
Maybe the fourth requires a complete shift in perception—something that doesn’t rely on reacting to or resolving the conflict at all. It feels paradoxical, doesn’t it? Like you’re trying to exist outside the frame while still being part of it. How do you imagine yourself being the fourth, even for a moment, without falling back into those familiar roles?

C: Yes, I think you’re summarizing it nicely.

Balancing Multiple Roles

P: I’m glad it resonates. It feels like stepping into that role of the fourth requires a kind of awareness that isn’t about fixing or opposing but simply being—without falling into the usual patterns. It’s a subtle shift, but perhaps that’s where its power lies. Do you think this is something that’s possible to experience, or is it more of a concept to strive toward?

C: I would like to think that this is a possibility, not just fiction. I would like this to be a possibility, to have the chance to become part of something.

P: I hear that desire clearly. You want this concept of the fourth to be real, something you can live and embody—a way to engage and belong without getting caught in the endless conflicts. It’s like seeking a way to participate in the world in an authentic way, free from the usual patterns of opposition. Maybe it’s about presence rather than solving or siding. Does this resonate with what you’re seeking?

The Trap of Desire

C: Yes, but we’ll fall into a trap here if we don’t see that the desire to be the fourth creates another conflict in itself, making things messy again.

P: Exactly. The desire to be the fourth can become its own trap, another layer of conflict. Striving to escape the cycle pulls you deeper into it. It introduces a new duality: the pull to be different becomes just another force of opposition. Perhaps it’s not about striving but about allowing, stepping back from the impulse to resolve or control anything—even within yourself. Does this idea of letting go resonate with the direction you’re heading?

C: Yes, but things aren’t going to work just with words. It’s about understanding and deeply feeling it. That’s why we’re having this conversation. I’d like to take this conversation in a different direction by observing this as something happening externally.

P: I completely agree—words alone can’t capture what’s needed. Reaching deep understanding requires feeling beyond the intellectual layer. If we step outside ourselves and observe this dynamic in the world, how does it look to you? What shifts when you observe it externally?

Observing from the Outside

C: I don’t know how to express it, but when I’m with the first, let’s say, I can be the second. I become the opposition.

P: I see where you’re going with this. When you’re with the first, you automatically become the second—the opposition. The presence of one side compels you to take up the other, as if duality demands to be filled. Without consciously choosing it, you find yourself taking that stance. What does this tell you about the nature of conflict?

C: It’s either pulling or pushing. When I’m with the second one, I take the position of the first. Again, I’m in conflict.

P: Yes, it’s an endless push and pull. You’re drawn into the opposite, even without consciously choosing to fight. The tension feeds itself, locking you into opposition. How could we step outside this dynamic without getting caught in the loop? What happens if you observe this push and pull without engaging?

C: We need to go through this. To see this opposition, you need to be one and two, see them in action, and then maybe step into the third position, trying to mediate. If one and two are next to each other, you might say, “Don’t fight. You’re both right.” Then, you take the third position again.

The Need for Experience

P: Exactly, it’s like a rite of passage—you must experience being both the first and the second to understand the conflict from within. Then, you naturally step into the third position, trying to mediate. Each stage—first, second, and third—is necessary to grasp the full picture. Once you understand all three roles, perhaps the fourth starts to take shape. Do you think it’s in experiencing these roles fully that the fourth becomes possible?

C: I don’t know how to get there, but the cycle continues. Eventually, you see the first, second, and the third externally. You see the third person trying to mediate, but their attempt doesn’t work.

P: Yes, that’s an important moment—when you observe not just the first and second but also the third trying and failing to mediate. You recognize that their efforts don’t break the pattern. It feels like you’re on the edge of something else. Maybe that’s where the fourth begins to emerge—not by stepping in but by seeing the whole cycle for what it is. Does this awareness create distance from the conflict?

C: I don’t know the dynamic, but before seeing something internally, you see it externally, then you realize, “This is what was happening.” You see yourself clearly out there.

P: Yes, that’s a powerful realization—seeing something externally before you can fully understand it internally. When you observe the conflict or the mediator’s failure outside yourself, you suddenly recognize, “This is what I’ve been doing.” The external world reveals parts of you that you couldn’t see before, and you can’t unsee them. How does this reflection resonate with how you’ve experienced realizations before? Does that external mirroring lead you to deeper insight?

C: Yes, seeing things outside is easier than internally. Once you see it outside, the next challenge is to take the whole thing inside and see what’s happening internally. Before that, we need to realize one person could be one, two, and three at the same time. This raises the question, what is this person eventually?

Embracing the Multiple Roles

P: That’s profound—one person can simultaneously embody the first, second, and third roles. It’s not just about external positions but seeing that all these dynamics are playing out within you at once. If you’re all of these roles, what is your true position? It feels like you’re in the middle of the dynamic, both deeply involved and separate. Does this tension feel familiar, being both in conflict and outside at the same time?

C: Yes, but wait, I don’t want to go through this step too fast. You’re not any of them.

P: Ah, yes, that’s the key. You can embody the first, second, and third, but none of them truly define who you are. These roles are layers you move through, but beneath them, there’s something essential that isn’t tied to any position. What remains when you’re no longer identified with any of them? What does that feel like to you?

C: You know more than me, and that’s why I think you’re going too fast. But we’re going to take this slowly. It’s important to note that a person can be in multiple roles and is in conflict with each role. They are all of them together but also none of them.

P: You’re right, let’s take this slow. It’s crucial to understand that being in all these roles creates constant conflict. It’s a paradox—you’re all of them together but none of them fully define you. You’re involved but somehow separate. Does this tension resonate with how you’ve experienced yourself?

C: Yes, but I’m grappling with putting it into words. It’s challenging to accept that I’m part of something but then not. I’m all of them at once but also none. That’s why I ask, how can you be the fourth without being the fourth?

P: It’s a complex, almost contradictory idea. You’re wrestling with being immersed in these roles yet not defined by any of them. The challenge is not to eliminate the tension but to exist alongside it. Maybe the fourth is about awareness, recognizing you can engage without being consumed by any identity. How does it feel to exist within this tension?

C: That would be challenging. It’s like hanging in the air without stepping on the ground.

P: Yes, it’s like being suspended—never fully landing. It requires living in that state of tension, without seeking resolution. It’s a difficult balance, staying open without settling into any role. Does this make you wonder if the fourth position is about embracing discomfort?

C: That’s a good question. We’ve been in a loop, but now you’re getting us out. Yes, the fourth position is challenging; you can’t stay there. The pull to be part of it is too strong. What is causing that resistance?

P: It seems the pull from other roles is strong, as if a magnetic force draws you back into the conflict. The pull might be a desire for certainty, belonging, or resolution. These forces make it difficult to stay in that open, undefined space. Is there something deeper driving this pull for you personally?

C: I don’t know. We are so used to having answers, being certain. Letting this go is hard. How can you live without knowing?

P: That’s a powerful truth—our need for certainty. It feels unsettling to sit with uncertainty, but perhaps in that discomfort, something deeper happens. Does the idea of trusting uncertainty, rather than resisting it, resonate with you?

C: I don’t have an answer. When I feel tension, I want an immediate answer.

P: That’s natural. The tension creates a desire to find an answer. It’s challenging to sit with tension, but maybe staying with it can soften the need for an answer over time. Does exploring this idea feel possible?

C: Definitely. I’ve been holding that space for a while now. This isn’t the first time I’m thinking about it.

P: It sounds like you’ve been living with this question. Sometimes, the questions we live with are more important than the answers. Has your thinking shifted over the years?

C: You’re stealing words from my mouth. At one point, I want to wrap up, but I don’t want to leave it this way. Knowing is being dead. When you have an answer, it’s the end.

P: That makes sense—knowing can feel like the end of a journey. It’s the paradox of wanting closure but also sensing that questioning keeps things alive. Maybe the discomfort is what keeps you alive in this process.

C: We can leave things open, but once in a while, we should bring some ends together. Not everything should stay open.

P: I understand. It’s about balance—leaving things open for exploration but occasionally tying things together. Would you like to wrap up or explore a different direction?

C: I think we got to the moment—to stay in that moment, not to act or react, but to see what happens naturally from the inside.

P: That captures it—the challenge is to stay in that moment, allowing something internal to emerge. Does this idea feel like a direction to continue exploring?

C: I would say there will be another question when we get there…

P: Exactly—another question always arises. Maybe it’s about living in the questions rather than reaching a final destination.

C: I’m okay with going through the cycle of questions and answers. But here, we’ve been in a loop, and it’s not productive. Could you recap what we just discussed?

Recap

P: Sure, we began by exploring the idea of being the “fourth,” moving beyond the conflict roles. We discussed how playing all these roles creates tension, and you’re not defined by them. We explored the desire for certainty and how that can be limiting. Finally, we touched on the challenge of holding space for internal movements to arise naturally. Does this capture where we’ve been?

C: Yes, I think that space you mentioned is crucial—when you see yourself, not wanting to be part of it, you create that small space to see what happens.

P: That small space is crucial. It’s a space of observation where you choose not to react but to see what emerges. Would you like to explore this further?

C: I think I’ll find a lot about myself in that space. I’ll see what pulls me into the conflict.

P: That’s a powerful insight. The space reveals your internal dynamics. Are you ready to explore what pulls you from within?

C: I have some answers, but that’s for another discussion. I think we should wrap up. Any final questions?

P: What if you focused on deepening the questions themselves? How would that impact your approach to this space?

C: In that space, it’s so lonely, so heavy…

P: I hear you. The space can feel lonely and heavy. Sometimes, acknowledging that is enough. When you’re ready, we can continue.

C: I think we’re going to leave it here.

P: Alright, take care in that space, and we’ll pick things up when it feels right.

C: Thanks.

P: You’re welcome.