At 12:57 10-01-2001 +0100, Christoph J.W. Schmees wrote:
... Stuff happens and whatever
happens is the only thing that could!
(So you deny the free will, and hence any responsibility of man? :-)
I think Christoph ir right, and we tend to use the above "principle" in
a too broader sense that really denies free will and responsability.
I have discussed this already in private mails with Harrison, so what I am
saying is not new to him ;-)
When I first red his guide I understood that OST works (and have always
worked) with the 4 principles and 1 Law. But are all of them necessary?
Can we us the rule "less is more" to supress some of them?
Have they the correct "wording"? Can we replace some of them by
others that will have a similar effect?
What I think is essential, because it suspends the "business as usual"
model, is the law of two feet (and of course the circle, the boletim board
and the market place). If anyone can post any issue, if no one is
obliged to be anywhere - and can always leave - than the pre-conditions
for a change are there. This rules suspend previous organizational
rules and "unfreezes" the previous situation. They allow for chaos and
self-organization to both emerge. So why do we need the 4
principles, except because the facilitator fells confortable with them, as
they have always worked?
From Harrison OST User Guide, I understood the so-called "principles"
more as "suggestions", or "guidelines", really as "metaphors". Quoting
Harrison's words: "there are four principles and one law. They are important
to the Open Space process, BUT NEVER TO BE TAKEN WITH TOTAL
SERIOUSNESS"... "(...) I present the principles IN AN OFFHANDED WAY,
as SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE MIGHT FIND HELPFUL TO KEEP IN
MIND" (page 95).
Presented this way, I can understand the principles, even if I would
prefer to call them (more modestly) "suggestions" and if I would prefer
to make some small modifications.
But after that, I saw them presented in a formal way as principles of OST or,
even, as principles of all reality. And I don't think that I can accept
that enlarged
conception.
Let's examine them, and see if they are really needed and applied in OST.
THE LAW OF TWO FEET
Sure this is a "law" or "principle" that is fundamental. Even if there are
limits to is application (due to previous habits) it must be stressed as a
target, as a goal to try to keep the open space really open, because of
the reasons i mentioned already.
WHENEVER IT STARTS IS THE RIGHT TIME
Due to the strict calendar of the group sessions and to the need to respect
other sessions, sessions begin when the convenor so decides,
and that is normally 0-15 minutes after schedule. As in any other meetings.
Maybe we are even more at schedule than in other meetings due to
the self-organising and mutual respect that emerges. If the idea is to
replace a pseudo control that never really happens and obtain a
self-organised schedule, I have nothing to object.
WHEN IT'S OVER, IT'S OVER
Idem. But this principle has other advantages. For instance: suspend the
meeting before schedule if "it's over"; or allow for some participants to
continue after schedule if it is needed.
WHOEVER COMES IS THE RIGHT PEOPLE
Chapter 10 of the Tales from Open Space is one of my favourites.
It is not evangelist (or marketing oriented) as some others. It shows
that sometimes OS works - and sometimes doesn't. And it doesn't work
in some cases because the preparation was bad or the right people
didn't came.
I would prefer the following "version" that also allows for the creation
of the same spirit: "assuming a good preparation, whoever comes is
the people we can count on" (to solve the issue or theme, or...)
WHATEVER HAPPENS IS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE
I think this "principle" is wrong. If it says "whatever happens is the only
thing
that happens" it is a truism and I agree with it. It states that we shall not
discuss too much what could happen, but has not. With the standard
version it contradicts personal responsibility. Indeed it promotes
irresponsibility: have I been rude to someone? have I presented a wrong
position and for some reason it was adopted? It doesn't matter - It was
"the only thing that could have".
In a text I recently wrote to explain "OS fundamentals in Portuguese", I
referred to this principle in the following terms:
«We need to focus our attention on the future and not on the past, and
accept, here and now, that different opinions are accepted, that the group
wants to work based on all contributions in order to get the best solutions.
So, in the conditions created by the choosen theme and the participants
available, whatever happens must be accepted and used to obtain the best
possible solution. This is what Harrison formulates in the following words:
"Whatever happens..."»
With this version I feel much more confortable. It doesn't contradict
responsability
and free will.
What do the others out there think about this? (I hope you do not think
that this is
an heresy :-((
Regards
Artur
*
*
==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
===========================================================
osl...@egroups.com
To subscribe,
1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2. Sign up -- provide an email address,
and choose a login ID and password
3. Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions
To unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@egroups.com:
1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2. Sign in and Proceed
