Dear Chris, dear Arthur, it has been very interesting for me to think about the question and the answer given. During the last days I tried to clarify for myself the difference between accepting and not-doing-anything-anymore. For me it has to do with the time I am referring to.
I agree that whatever happens under the present conditions is whatever could have and that there is no use in thinking about "ifs" and "shoulds". And maybe the conditions are not only right but neither right nor wrong - they just are. This is true esp. when thinking about the now or the past. But thinking about the future I can ask which conditions are supportive and which are not: which make change, development, transformation more possible than others? If one of the things necessary for differenciation (as I agree with) is a nutritious environment - than we can influence the possibilities for transformation by sharing nutrition (physically or in other dimensions). And referring to "wrong" conditions in organisations, the world, our heads: Maybe they seem not to be helpful or not fitting anymore or born out of anxiousness. But at least they were the "right" conditions at another time or place. And in the moment being they are still "right" for the organisation or the person and we - judging them - just don't have all the insights... What I decided to try doing is both: totally accept the past and the now - but do my share to influence the future (and accept whatever is coming). Does that make sense to you? Marei "Chris Corrigan" <ch...@chriscorrigan.com> schrieb: > Whatever conditions are present are the right conditions for whatever > happens is the only thing that could have happened. > > Seriously. > > I think the second principle refers to the fact that no matter what > initial conditions are present, whatever happens is the only thing that > could have. It sounds like a tautology, but I think of it more as a Zen > koan. It is supposed to bring your consciousness to a place that > accepts the fact that "should" is an extremely useless word when we are > dealing with an expanded now. > > As for the conditions that make Open Space really hum, I go back to > Harrison's elegantly stated four: passion, diversity, complexity and > urgency. The more of each, the better the process works. > > And that, for many facilitators and managers, is another paradox. > > Chris > > --- > CHRIS CORRIGAN > Bowen Island, BC, Canada > http://www.chriscorrigan.com > ch...@chriscorrigan.com > > (604) 947-9236 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of > Artur > > Ferreira da Silva > > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:18 AM > > To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > > Subject: Conversing about..."the right conditions" > > > > Hello again: > > > > For someone like myself that has problems with the capitalized word > Spirit (as well as with some other capitalized words) and with the wording of > the "principle" that says "whatever happens is the only thing that could > have" I felt very surprised as I completely agree with this formulation > (from Alan's, "The Conversing Company"): > > > > "... When people interact under the right conditions, spirit or > > intelligence emerges automatically - it is the only thing that could > > have". > > > > The way I see the "right conditions" to be present, or not, are the > > following: > > > > - In "normal organizations", using current meeting methodologies, the > > wrong conditions are normally present - they are "closed" by rules and > > regulations, both explicit and tacit. > > > > - In our outside macro-world the wrong conditions are normally present > > (see the Middle East or Iraq - before and now - to give only two examples - > > maybe three). > > > > - Inside our heads the wrong conditions are normally present - as > > obsolete "mental models". > > > > For the space to be open it is necessary that someone opens it AND > that the "right conditions" are defined/clarified in the first place. Those > right conditions are not only the OST principles and law but also: the > correct preparation, the fact that all stakeholders with enough diversity are > > invited (but not obliged, directly or indirectly) to participate, a > right and open theme is addressed, etc. > > > > I would very much like to see what others think that are the "right > > conditions" for "whatever happens is the only thing that could happen" > to be true. > > > > 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
