Thanks you Chris
very enligthening conversation.....
It inspires me to more often ask some serious questions when meeting Mr
Given...
- are you real ?
- do you, Mister Given have natural meaning or are you based in fear
and control?
- if I challenced you would you disappear or become my creative friend ?
more "give ups" would become shadows and more real givens could surface
into clarity....
thanks for making this practise more conscious .....
- toke
søndag 2. mar 2003 kl. 12:32 skrev Chris Corrigan:
Yes Bernd, my point was that the Wright brothers, having fully
understood the givens, figured out how to fly. I recently read that
only weeks before they did this, the New York Times published an
editorial saying that humans would never fly. Seems to me to be a
prime
example of what I'm talking about.
This case is in fact an eloquent example of what I mean now when I say
that the real "givens" are empowering and the false ones are
disempowering. Dealing with real givens, we can work around them,
bring
to bear all the creativity and ingenuity of the human spirit alone or
in
groups to figure out solutions that include and transcend the givens.
But I believe that the hardest givens to overcome are the ones that
aren't even real: the stories we tell ourselves about why we can't do
things. In that case, empowerment finally comes when one sees that the
stories are simply stories, and not reality at all.
To put it on a bumper sticker, it's the difference between "givens" and
"give-ins"
Eh?
Chris
---
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Consultation - Facilitation
Open Space Technology
Bowen Island, BC, Canada
http://www.chriscorrigan.com
ch...@chriscorrigan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of WB-
TrainingConsultingDevelopment
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:44 AM
To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
Subject: Re: Givens (was: Already-thereness, Empowerment and Such)
Has nothing to do with open space,
just a note for science-metaphor using freeks:
------------
Chris,
I like your argument
but your example is only good in the sense of a metapher.
f you look at the real history of technology, the Wright- brothers'
(and
other genial technical engeneer's) approach was not the one you
described. Yet they flew.
The point is, that you forgot that there was another fact-or in the
game
you unduely reduced complexity
Air: they did not invent ballistic rockets (for which your argument
would
be right)
But they used aerodynamics against gravity in their art (greek:
téknè) of
flying
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:14:18 -0800, Chris Corrigan wrote:
Without getting esoteric, one can WANT to fly, but if one advances
efforts to do so without admitting that gravity is a force to be
reckoned with, one won't get very far. However, if one accepts that
gravity is real and can be absolutely known and that it is a true
given, then one can accommodate gravity in one's quest to fly. "Okay
then" one would think, "I need to make something that accelerates me
away from the earth with more force than gravity can exert on me."
This is profoundly more empowering thought than "Screw it, gravity is
too strong. I'll never fly." It is more empowering because it
actually leads one to flight.
*
*
==========================================================
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
