And yet the Buddhist recognition is that, ultimately, the sleeping and awakened state are "non-dual". Not a choice of either-or, but both-and. So in OS, and as a facilitator of OS, our work is to set the conditions, hold the container with full presence to allow individuals to catapult back and forth - to find bridges from the sleeping to the awakened state - and back again. After all, we are embodied (in-a-body) creatures, and our truth/reality is expressed in ourselves, our relationships, our culture and our technical systems. My own experience is that this "back again" piece is very grounding. The more fully I (or a group or organization) can express a new "perception/reality/truth" the more fully real it becomes.
:) :) Meg Salter MegaSpace Consulting 416/486-6660 meg.sal...@sympatico.ca www.megaspaceconsulting.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Smith" <jsm...@mosquitonet.com> To: <osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Reflections on Truth, Systems and Reality. > Some people believe we have but two choices for defining reality. One > choice is to be awake, and the other is to be asleep. > > The sleeping state is the state most of us occupy most of the time. It is > sometimes called the world of illusion. I believe Buddhists call this maya > (or is it samsara?). It is from within this state that the Sioux legend > resonates with me. When we are in our sleeping/dream/illusion state, we > create our own reality, and the knowledge that we are doing so resides > within each of us. Other ideas also resonate from this state: the idea of > relative or contextual truth, of shifting realities, of the relevance of > past and future. From within this state, there is no identifiable absolute > Truth. > > The awakened state, as I understand it, cannot be described with words. It > can only be experienced. Yet words can help point the way. My > understanding is that the awakened state is a state of absolutes and > eternals. Something on the order of Truth = Love = God = You = Me = All = > One. That doesn't exactly express my understanding, as the equal signs do > not adequately express the relationship between God (Creator) and Us > (Created), but it's close. From this state, which is our only real and > natural state, truth = reality = love. Time is an irrelevant concept > because the present, the eternal Now, is the only "time" there is. > > I think in some ways our discussion has been confusing because our language > and thoughts weave between these two states. Whenever someone talks about > focusing on being "present," or on spirit or connection or oneness, I feel > them searching for the awakened state. From this state of mind, we're > looking for absolutes, for a way of being in the world we can always count > on to elicit the best from ourselves and others. At the same time, we're > all facing the daily "reality" of our dream-state, so we weave in ideas > about contextual truths, shifting realities, and the like. > > For those of us who believe all of that (or something similar) is true, the > only pragmatic activity we can undertake is to seek the awakened state. > That causes all kinds of personal tensions because what is pragmatic to a > person seeking an awakened state looks like the height of folly to a > "pragmatic" person operating from the rules and expectations of the illusory > world. There are many very powerful pressures that tempt us to conform to > the shifting belief systems of the illusory world. We therefore naturally > tend toward processes and people who are open and who give us space to > explore the possibility of a different meaning for life. I assume people > are drawn to OS because of it's inherent openness, respect, trust and > (borrowing from Carl Rogers) unconditional positive regard. Those are all > attributes, I believe, of the awakened state. > > Julie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: william becker <fbbec...@earthlink.net> > To: <osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:46 AM > Subject: Re: Reflections on Truth, Systems and Reality. > > > > It's great to hear from a pragmatist. I think your insights lean heavily > > towards earlier conversations around implementation of results. > > > > it seems to bee looking for meaning/Truth from the OST process is akin to > > looking for the meaning of Life, when Life itself is the meaning. > > > > As I understand OST, there can be no explicit expectations. It's > construct > > is built on the premis that what is, IS (not to sound like one of our > > citizens)- whoever shows up and whatever happens is what is supposed to > > happen. > > > > How can we prepare a context for expectations from such an event? I know > > this sounds fatalistic, but isn't the process built on the same concept? > > > > It is interesting that, including me, how we discover a process that is > > different that past practices we have used, and overtime we try to deify > it. > > Our yearning to be linked to the Power Spirit may drive this. > > > > Yet when the Spirit "created" us, s/he may have accepted the fact that > > whatever results is what it is supposed to be. Sure, there are the two > > extremes of good and bad, yet maybe that friction, as is the molten heat > > within earth, the thing that holds the Spirit's creation together. > > > > I keep saying it, but will again, this dialogue is very stimulating and > > gives me pause in my work and personal life. > > > > Thanks to everyone. > > > > Bill Becker > > Strategic Business Resources > > www.stratbussres.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "J. Paul Everett" <jpesee...@aol.com> > > To: <osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu> > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:50 PM > > Subject: Reflections on Truth, Systems and Reality. > > > > > > > Discussion on Truth, OSE’s, Godel, Reality Models > > > > > > What is “Truth” depends largely on one’s model of reality, I think. One > ’s > > > model of reality is generally built on the cultural frame one is raised > in > > as > > > well as one’s personal experiences of what works and what doesn’t work, > or > > > work well enough. If this is ‘true’, then ‘truth’ is contextual, both > as > > > to time and geography (space). (One need only remember Galileo having > to > > > recant his hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun in order to > > save > > > his life to see how powerful organizational ‘truth’ can be in its > ‘current > > > reality’.) > > > > > > Further, I think that reality dictates to me, I do not dictate to > reality. > > > Our task, therefore, is to discover what works, in reality (more on this > > in a > > > moment). > > > > > > Godel’s Theorem states that “For any system of integer arithmetic, a > > > proposition can be put that can be neither proved or disproved within > the > > > system.” Godel’s Theorem is based on paradox, which is a statement that > > > makes a statement about itself. It is itself, it’s own ‘box’. By > > Godelian > > > reasoning, therefore, every model of reality is necessarily inconsistent > > or > > > incomplete or both. (I am indebted to an article by Prof. Robert Hall > in > > the > > > second quarter 2001 Target magazine of the Association for Manufacturing > > > Excellence for provoking and aiding the discussion in this and part of > the > > > following paragraph.) > > > > > > And, since there is no way a human can comprehend the whole universe, we > > all > > > live in a box bounded by our observation, learning and > experience---which > > may > > > become our truth. The danger is, of course, if it becomes “The Truth” . > > > > > > My perception of Open Space Technology, itself a model of reality, is > that > > it > > > is a system/process for helping people express themselves in a > > > self-organizing way and ‘think outside the box’---the box often being > > > corporate or organizational rules, regulations, culture, ‘the way we do > > > things around here’---and every organized system has these, even OST. > > Godel > > > says we can’t self-reference OST in evaluating OST as a system. We have > > to > > > begin to think from the outside in----a difficult prospect if we get > > caught > > > up in truth. > > > > > > Further, according to discussions held here, there have been Open Space > > > Events (OSE’s) that were, in military parlance, “limited successes”. > > Maybe > > > even failures. In essence, they didn’t work well enough to meet the > needs > > of > > > the situation---the reality in which they occurred. This makes one very > > > tentative in proclaiming a truth about any given system, even OST. > > > > > > However, there are some questions we might choose to ask ourselves that > > may > > > enhance the chances of a “successful” event. I say "may", because chaos > > is > > > also part of our reality and we never can be sure we have it in a box. > We > > > have already had several valuable contributions from people’s > experiences > > > that speak to elements of these questions. > > > > > > 1. What are the minimum necessary preconditions and context needed to > > enable > > > an OSE to “work”? > > > > > > 2. What might we define as an OSE that “works”? (Is people going away > > > feeling good about the event enough? Or, is a successful OSE one that > has > > > needed outcomes as defined by the client system?) > > > > > > 3. Is a successful OSE, like truth, contextual? > > > > > > 4. Should a successful OSE, at a minimum, create meaning? That is, > make > > a > > > difference in its own context? Should these differences be observable, > > > concrete, that on which action can be taken? Or, is an inner change > > > sufficient? Is there a holy grail of an OSE? > > > > > > Interesting thread of discussion, thank you to all those who are > > contributing > > > from their own reality which has their truths embedded in it. :) > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > J. Paul Everett, Consultant > > > World Class Performance > > > jpesee...@aol.com > > > > > > * > > > * > > > ========================================================== > > > 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...@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...@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...@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
