Hi Harrison, Thank you for your kind response (and all the other responses (I'll be back!)). I'm still not understanding this, so would love digging deeper into the subject. I wrote a long response, but now I'm just going to ask you two questions based on your first point:
"First: All systems are self organizing, even those we think we organize." 1. How do you define a system? 2. What does self-organizing mean? I'm realizing that we might just as well start with defining the terms and go from there. I hope that's ok with you. Wishing you and all on the list a wonderful and Happy New Year! Marie Ann (to clarify: one name spelt like two - I blame my parents :) On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Harrison Owen <hho...@verizon.net> wrote: > Marie – I think you have it just right. But maybe you are making things a > little too complicated, and working a bit too hard. In my simple mind, > things look like this. First: All systems are self organizing, even those > we think we organize. Second: Organizing a self organizing system is not > only an oxymoron, but stupid – especially when the system can do a better > job all by itself. Third: Whenever we try to organize a self-organizing > system, we inevitably get it wrong. Our efforts are “clunky.” Even though > it may look great on paper, our efforts are never subtle or flexible > (agile) enough. Fourth: Open Space is simply an invitation to self > organize. In other words it is simply an invitation to be and do what we > are. The fact that it works as it does has nothing to do with our knowing > any philosophy, principles, practices... It works as it has for 13.7 > billion years, long before we arrived on the scene, all without our help > and assistance. Fifth: the real value of OST is as a training program > enabling us to experience consciously and intentionally what all too often > passes by unnoticed – Life. It is also a marvelous laboratory in which we > can learn more about our natural state. And oh yes – all the principles, > philosophies, practices, etc are fun, interesting, and useful to the extent > that they help us to understand with greater clarity what is really going > on. But at the end of the day they really don’t change a thing. I think. > > > > ho > > > > Harrison Owen > > 7808 River Falls Dr. > > Potomac, MD 20854 > > USA > > > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > > Camden, Maine 04843 > > > > Phone 301-365-2093 > > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > > > www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20> > > www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website) > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > OSLIST Go to: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > > *From:* oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org [mailto: > oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Marie Ann Östlund > *Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:17 PM > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list > *Subject:* [OSList] self-organization > > > > Dear all, > > I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the > opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year. > > > I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or holding > the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the concept and the > way we've talked about it. But this autumn the penny dropped (!) for me (to > some extent) and I could also understand why I make the connections I do > with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why others don't make that same > connection. > > I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand this, > and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning - it's a bit > long. > > Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that exemplified > some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave me the perfect cue > to put my thoughts together (Thank you!): > > "And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that these > folks (whoever they are...) are already “in” Open Space. They are just > doing it badly. Your “offer” is simply to help them to do what they are > already doing – but now with some understanding, expertise, and style. > Short take: you can help them to remember what they already know, and > having remembered, to do everything much better." > > I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are already > "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly. > > If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger > "organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars, > peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families, teams, > etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization. Some are to > our liking, some are not. > > Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful and > some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the self-organization done > "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST *work*, as we sometimes > put it? > > The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences lies in > the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In simpler or > smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer than in larger ones > (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the macro level, countries > organize themselves based on certain principles - like one of the > foundational principles of the US is the freedom to *be* religious and > freedom *from* the state (from Britain and its monarchy), while in France > freedom *from* religion is foundational and influence what citizens are > allowed to learn and wear in school or say in the public sphere, and in > Sweden the state (or previously the monarchy) have historically been the > guarantor and protector of individual freedom (against the aristocracy). An > even greater and deeper organizing principle we've adopted in the western > hemisphere is the idea of progress - that our societies invariably progress > through scientific and technological advances. And yes, all these ideas, > although found articulated by some powerful philosophers, are in a sense a > product of self-organization. However interesting the ideas, they would go > nowhere if people didn't accept/adopt/spread them or felt they resonated > with their own ideas and experiences. The way ideas evolve and spread are > certainly complex. > > I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the > complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and organise > our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one may call them > organizing principles. A company can have organizing principle/s - there > are differences between how General Motors and Apple are organized and what > define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A family also have organizing > principles (who's the boss, how decisions are made etc). > > What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing > principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two > feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European Learning > Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to some extent - > sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law and market place, > off you go, evening and morning updates, closing circle etc. If it's Open > Space, why keep to these rules as we often come back to doing OST in a > certain way. Why do we (religiously) adhere to a certain format when doing > OST - at least this is how I interpret the query hearing about it second > hand. > > However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's > done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows > self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we create > a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it. The principles > help us free our minds enough to be present with what's happening (and most > importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the organising principle - > follow your heart (and use your feet to do so). Take responsibility for > what you love. > > What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel alive, > we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at what is > created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken to another > level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we create when we > come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We love and feel > loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad' feelings in OS or > don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me) that's often to do with > us not following our hearts as fully as we would like to or we're in the > messy chaotic part in our organizing process. > > So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being. It > says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love > contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than us, and > we thrive when we're connected. > > My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take > responsibility for what you love) is an organising principle that is closer > to our human nature than many other organizing-principles. That's why it > *works*. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent, and selfish as > Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the basic organizing > principles in international relations (more or less). One of the reasons > some systems work better is that the organising principles are more fitting > to our needs and natures. And some may have worked for some time but no > longer does, as they have grown too rigid or not kept up with > time/development. They might have helped us from a worse condition, but not > fully hit home. > > To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as > facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble is > created within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use rituals to > communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in a different way > than others. We show physically that we're doing something else here than > in other systems, by sitting in a circle, going around it, etc. Rituals are > powerful. If all system would use the same organizing principle these > rituals might no longer matter, or they would adopt the same. > > To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some > principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation that > works better than most as its organising principle is closer to human > nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human nature isn't > done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning. Sorry :) > > But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image of > dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can also > look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with the soul > (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic perspective is > also the personal or individual view point, of what the dance can be that > we create together in love and in relationship to each other. And that > might tell a different story about who we are. > > > I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what makes > sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you. > > All the best, > > Marie Ann > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > >
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
