David, thank you for this. It's a helpful perspective. I'm a slow thinker (not in Kahneman's sense - just slow) so will need to meditate on this some more. If I understand you rightly, self-organization is like a natural law (like gravity) but that it's also based on agents making choices. That in turn create patterns. Self-organization under right circumstances can produce powerful change, or emergent change (and I understand this to be desirable or constructive change). OST creates optimal circumstances for emergent change.
Can it not be that self-organization happens because we are fundamentally constructive, helpful beings. The magic, or the natural law bit, is not extrinsic (external) to us but instrinsic (natural or essential) to us, and is what happens when we are in relation to someone else (or others) that share a similar passion/belief/vision etc. Anyway, just thinking aloud. Thank you. Marie Ann On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, David Osborne <dosbo...@change-fusion.com>wrote: > Marie Ann, > > I loved reading your message and thoughts on Open Space and > Self_Organization. A topic I love and I believe quite paradoxical to > explain. I agree with all you've shared and have another view as well. > Self-Organizing is like a multi-faceted diamond that can be viewed from > multiple perspectives. All I am about to write I have learned from > Harrison. > > Self-Organizing is nothing more than individual agents (in this case > humans) making choices that....when culminated together forms a pattern or > the way things are. The phenomena is scalable so it can happen in a family, > team, group, organization, country, club, world etc. I have a few core > beliefs about self-organization. > - It is a law just like the law of gravity > - It is operating all the time, just like gravity it is invisible to > us....we may like the pattern or not...patterns tend to be > self-reinforcing....think of a time things seem stuck > - It can produce powerful change under the right conditions....I call > this emergent change....Open Space set the conditions for this type of > emergent change which I will share more about below > > Harrison in his book *The Practice of Peace* outlines how Open Space > replicates the conditions of Self- Organization flowing from complexity > Science as identified in Stuart Kauffmans book *At Home in The Universe. *I > would argue that Kauffman really identified just one pattern of > self-organizaiton that leads to emergent change. When we understand the > conditions we can do many, many things to build the conditions to support > emergent change beyond pure open space. The conditions include: > > - A safe nutrient environment > - A high level of diversity > - Sparse prior connections between the diverse elements > - A drive for improvement.....or fitness with the environment > - Being on the edge of chaos > > Here is how Open Space creates these conditions. > > A safe nutrient environment: > - This starts with the invitation...and individual choice to > participate....this makes it safe > - Sitting in a circle, puts everyone at an equal level...minimizing power > and hierarchy differences....again making it more safe > - The law of two feet supports safety > - Positive Intention. The framing of the invitation as something everyone > wants to achieve creates a shared goal that also builds safety. I suspect > Harrison's hours of meditating in advance deepens and purifies the > intention in some manner that contributes to the safety. > - The safety ultimately makes it safe for people to bring, foster and > pursue their passion....it is the energy that makes it all work > > A high level of diversity: Sameness breeds sameness. IT is the mixing of > diverse idea's that increases the potential for new emergent options > - The diverse group of participants an OS invitation draws > > Sparse Prior Connections > - This is created by the diverse group of participants > - The circle, bulletin board process, law of two feet all support new and > different connections > > Drive for Improvement > - The reason for holding an OS in the first place > > Being on the Edge of Chaos (Two levels of this) > - Sitting on the edge of the circle not knowing what's going to unfold in > the OS is the edge of chaos > - What ever issue the organization or group is facing that is creating > the need for change. The greater the urgency for change the closer to teh > edge of chaos. > > So if I summarize OS supports the conditions for self-organization to > lead to emergent change because: > > The situation is ready for it: There is some need for change (edge of > chaos) and there is a desire to change (drive for improvement) > The elements are present to create it: Diverse views connected in new > ways. > Safety is created to let it happen: This takes relinquishing control and > letting what will naturally emerge to emerge > > As I said earlier....if the goal is for change or something new to > emerge OS creates the conditions for this AND there are lot's of things we > can do to open space for change beyond pure open space. > > I hope this is a helpful perspective. > > David > 703-939-1777 > dosbo...@change-fusion.com > [image: Inline image 1] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Marie Ann Östlund < > marieann.ostl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > -- > > David Osborne > > www.change-fusion.com | dosbo...@change-fusion.com | 703.939.1777 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
