Beautiful inspiring text Skye, I saw in it where I am going. Thanks From my iPad
> On 07/01/2014, at 16:33, Skye Hirst <sk...@autognomics.org> wrote: > > At the risk of adding to the mix - http://www.clarewgraves.com/ you might > wish to look at Graves work on spiraling development who followed and studied > human cultural development. > > I think there is a cosmic rhythm in which we all dance and find our way. > This was Joseph Campbell's summarization of his observations of cultural > universal myths; There seems to be some way we organize within a cosmic set > of laws yet discovered, but laws of coherence such a valuing laws Robert S. > Hartman's work begins to point in this direction. But natural language > discourses usually can be most unsatisfying since everyone brings their own > vortex of perspective to any view of "reality." So defining terms may help > but again not very satisfying. How do we know what we know? Charles > Peirce's work of semiotics, sign processes what asking this question. I think > you will find he was an influence of Piaget and Dewey moving thoughts in the > direction of constructivism/ pragmaticism. And Habermas is trying to find a > logic - and that's the hard part when most of our logic is based on "thing" > fixedness and life's processes are ever evolving. Up or down the staircase, > there is always a movement, a new becoming - for each living entity. How it > adds up will most likely be "self-organized" through our vortex plus that in > which we live. We can look back and make some sense of it, but actually only > slightly as even in looking at facts, we can change our perception of those > facts and now have a new reality. > > How do we get to the underlying assumptions about reality of Open Space Tech? > Rather than define language, Harrison seems to be pointing to what those > underlying, most fundamental assumptions and operatives upon and through > which every act can find its way. Open means never ending - without form, > until there is need for such and societies form as needed around passions > towards intentional fulfillments. Yet even when the coherence fulfillment > occurs, the next act begins, and the next, all the while we move into and > out of what works for us, what we value or not (law of two feet). It's so > complex that to analyze it without understanding the fundamentals, you can > get lost. (Example consider all the ways you can move without even knowing > about the law of gravity, there is no end to choices, yet if you want to go > the moon, you need to know about that law of gravity, it doesn't say you have > to, but if you want to do something that requires functioning within that > realm, then you will want to know about it. However, we walked around this > planet a long time not knowing this law existed.) > > I think the organizing laws of life (most different than the laws of matter, > I hypothesize) are the new frontier > > So if we explore all the ways life self-organizes we may be talking about > this for a long time each adding our own knowing of the experience. We get > richer and deeper perspectives and in the process we may just begin to sense > the threads that show up and eventually we grow in our understanding of our > human shared experience. This is called philosophy - and as knowledge > expands, we act with new awareness and I'm beginning to think each of us do > this in our own way, within the constraints of our "identity", the society > and of nature. This life process is open ended as each of us finds our way > acting with our best knowledge - within and without, and then we get to > choose again sensing what "feels" right to us and acting/creating anew. My > two cents. Skye > > >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Marie Ann Östlund >> <marieann.ostl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> John, thank you so much for providing clarity to the discussion. You're >> right that Piaget talked about developmental stages or cognitive structures, >> and was interested in the structures of development rather than individual >> development. I didn't study Piaget more than was required for my study of >> Habermas, but you're right. >> >> Habermas was, and still is, certainly engaged with the idea of social >> progress, which is a foundational idea in his overall social theory, but his >> interest does not lie in historical development but in the logic of >> development (which was also Piaget's interest). I found David Owen's Between >> Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Social Progress really useful >> in clarifying Habermas' social theory - and you may find it here: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsk84z0wy6v7nsj/OWEN%20Habermas%20and%20the%20Idea%20of%20Progress%20%282002%29.pdf >> If you're interested. :) Habermas did speak about progress and about >> consciousness, but wasn't interested in the historical facts and content of >> consciousness, but in the structure and logic of societal progress and the >> evolution of consciousness. Owen likens development logic with a staircase - >> one may move up, or down or remain stationary, the movements follow a >> certain logic. Why and when one moves up and down the stairs is a contingent >> matter, but when one moves one has to follow a certain logic. When societies >> step up a stair they have expanded their consciousness, meaning learning >> capacity, when they step down, their learning capacity or horizon of >> consciousness constricts. I never thought I'd read about expansion of >> consciousness when reading Habermas, but did. :) >> >> Habermas has been interested in the staircase, not in the belief in progress >> per se. But I would say that his main interest has been solidarity - what >> makes people bond and cooperate, and thus what makes societies stick >> together. That's why he's been interested in communication. >> >> Marie Ann >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:39 AM, John Watkins <johnw...@mac.com> wrote: >>> Paul and Marie Ann, >>> >>> There are some pretty loose uses of terms in this conversation I'd like to >>> challenge. I don't think Piaget ever talked about human evolution, nor >>> about an individual "evolving," nor about societal cognitive development >>> over time. He did develop a theory about individual human cognitive >>> development, that involved several stages (sensorimotor, pre-operational, >>> concrete operations, and formal operational stages) and two different >>> processes (assimilation and accommodation) of concept/category development. >>> It's also a constructivist theory of knowledge in general, positing an >>> active cognitive construction of our understanding of the world around us. >>> Here is a good summary from the Wikipedia page on his theory: >>> >>> "Piaget's theory of cognitive development is a comprehensive theory about >>> the nature and development of human intelligence, first developed by Jean >>> Piaget. It is primarily known as a developmental stage theory, but in fact, >>> it deals with the nature of knowledge itself and how humans come gradually >>> to acquire, construct, and use it. To Piaget, cognitive development was a >>> progressive reorganization of mental processes as a result of biological >>> maturation and environmental experience. Children construct an >>> understanding of the world around them, then experience discrepancies >>> between what they already know and what they discover in their >>> environment.[1] Moreover, Piaget claims the idea that cognitive development >>> is at the center of human organism and language is contingent on cognitive >>> development. Below, there is first a short description of Piaget's views >>> about the nature of intelligence and then a description of the stages >>> through which it develops until maturity. "However, research has shown that >>> not all persons in all cultures reach formal operations, and most people do >>> not use formal operations in all aspects of their lives."[2]" >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development >>> >>> People have contested parts of his theory because of the seeming rigidity >>> of the stages, and people have modified it with social learning theory >>> (Vygotsky, Wenger). As far as I know, none of these people posited that >>> individual development is mirrored in the development of human society >>> (other than the seemingly unrelated argument of recapitulation theory, >>> "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny"), which argues that an individual >>> organism's physical development from once cell to fully formed takes it >>> through all the evolutionary precursors of its species. And seemingly the >>> opposite of what you are saying, he argues that language is contingent on >>> cognitive development, not the other way around. >>> >>> I think Habermas, as a member of the Frankfurt School, was trying to find a >>> way around the problems in critical theory of "false consciousness" when he >>> proposed his ideas about communicative competence as a way to transcend >>> social orders based on ideology (and the languages and communication forms >>> specific to technical and social discourses). He was concerned with >>> conditions that would allow for social change in settings constrained by >>> ideology, and thus proposed the idea of "emancipatory knowledge," that >>> could arise in social communicative interactions that he called "linguistic >>> intersubjectivity." Though the Frankfurt School are neo-Marxists, I doubt >>> that Habermas and his followers were strong believers in "progress," the >>> only word I can think of that might be what you mean by societal evolution, >>> though, I suppose one could call that a materialist form of social >>> evolution (I just wonder at the precision of the use of the term, >>> "evolution," in this context). If communicative competence is the main way >>> he saw to move beyond ideologically constrained realities and achieve >>> social justice, then it must be a precarious and necessarily recursive >>> strategy at best. You could argue that epistemologically, Piaget and >>> Habermas might have been somewhat similar in being anti-postivists, one >>> being a cognitive constructivist and the other a social constructivist. >>> But I think the similarities end there. I don't think either of them >>> really talked about the evolution of consciousness. >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Marie Ann Östlund wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Paul, >>> > >>> > Thank you for that. I'm not well versed in these theories but I know that >>> > Habermas have used Piaget's theory of human evolution to describe >>> > evolution of human society. What I find attractive with his view is his >>> > emphasis on communication as the motor of evolution - human conciousness >>> > evolves through interaction with others and become less egoistic or >>> > self-centred. However, this evolution is not inevitable. That's why >>> > Habermas is so concerned with the communicative side of society. It is >>> > through our interaction with others that our self-centredness is >>> > challenged and hopefully modified. >>> > >>> > Others have challenged the view that it's possible to compare the >>> > evolution of consciousness - from childhood to youth - with the evolution >>> > of society. Still others don't agree with Piaget's theory (within his >>> > field) but I don't know their objections. >>> > >>> > But if we use the idea that evolution of consciousness means becoming >>> > less self-centred and more conscious of others - are we sure that human >>> > society is evolving? And if we are, is it from a historical low-point >>> > (20th century wasn't particularly wonderful, considering the WWs, Cold >>> > War etc.) or has it progressed steadily from time immemorial? From what >>> > historical point do we take our measure? From where, which continent, and >>> > what are we measuring? >>> > >>> > I'm conscious that I'm questioning some commonly held assumptions, and >>> > you might find it ridiculous of me to do so. But that's what fools are >>> > for :) >>> > >>> > Marie Ann >>> > >>> > Skickat från min iPhone >>> > >>> > 6 jan 2014 kl. 22:38 skrev Paul Nunesdea <nunes...@me.com>: >>> > >>> >> Hi Marie Ann, >>> >> >>> >> I apologise if interrupting an otherwise interesting conversation here >>> >> with but when you ask >>> >>> interested to know what you base your idea that human consciousness has >>> >>> "clearly evolved". :) >>> >> >>> >> Piaget and others have written about how human consciousness evolves >>> >> from birth to adult life. >>> >> >>> >> Most of this knowledge derives from cheer observation of small child's >>> >> behaviour. >>> >> >>> >> If you extrapolate this findings to our own evolution as a species >>> >> wouldn't it be natural that this same self-developing path applies to >>> >> this other dimension of 'being human'? >>> >> >>> >> Happy new year!! >>> >> >>> >> From my iPad >>> >> >>> >> On 06/01/2014, at 18:02, Marie Ann Östlund <marieann.ostl...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> >>> >>> I do agree that Open Space is a form of organising - a beautiful and >>> >>> eloquent one, as you say. If we bring 200 people in a room without any >>> >>> set up, principles, law, facilitator etc, it most probably be quite a >>> >>> different meeting than an Open Space meeting. So yes, a form of >>> >>> organising. >>> >>> >>> >>> Interesting view on self-organising. I hear what you're saying, and I >>> >>> think many esoterically inclined on the list would agree. I'm >>> >>> esoterically inclined, but don't quite agree. But that's not the point. >>> >>> This discussion helps me understand how some of you define and view >>> >>> self-organisation, and why you talk about it in the way you do. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd be interested to know what you base your idea that human >>> >>> consciousness has "clearly evolved". :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Marie Ann >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM, paul levy <p...@cats3000.net> wrote: >>> >>> HI Marie >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm suggesting quite the opposite. Truth doesn't always elude us >>> >>> because we are both tiny and universal. >>> >>> >>> >>> Open Space is a form of organisation. It is a minimally structured >>> >>> process that enables BOTH selves and the SELF to organise. >>> >>> >>> >>> Self-organisation is the act of the self, organising. The self is >>> >>> microcosmic, realised in the emergent, incarnated individual self, and >>> >>> macrocosmic in the holism (whole-ism) of the universe. Diversity lies >>> >>> in between, different levels and qualities of consciousness. >>> >>> >>> >>> As consciousness in our human selves has clearly been evolving, we've >>> >>> gone through various stages. Egoism has tended to both harden the self >>> >>> and lead to overstructure as those selves attempt to enclose and gain >>> >>> control over nature. Minimal structuring and organisation is an >>> >>> antidote to overstructure. Open Space Technology is such a minimal >>> >>> structure. And, oh yes, a structure it is. A beautiful, eloquent one. >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 January 2014 23:37, Marie Ann Östlund <marieann.ostl...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Paul. I'm not sure how to respond or if I need to. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Truth with always elude us since we're tiny. But that doesn't mean we >>> >>> shouldn't try to understand. And as you say: "Perhaps it's us >>> >>> self-organising so the self might know it" That's what I'm suggesting. >>> >>> Our experiences might help us towards some more coherence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marie Ann >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:09 PM, paul levy <p...@cats3000.net> wrote: >>> >>> Of course, all of these wonderful statements about what >>> >>> self-organisation is, are organising statements ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Open Space Technology itself, minimal as it is, is an organising >>> >>> process. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do enjoy lazy philosophy. It's part of our mysterious humanity. And >>> >>> making statements about self-organisation is like trying to bite your >>> >>> own teeth. You can't grasp this particular spiritual feather because >>> >>> you are the feather, the wind, the blowing and even the story of it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Though, perhaps the "self" in self-organisation really does refer to >>> >>> the human self. >>> >>> >>> >>> The eye is formed by the light, for the light. Perhaps it's us >>> >>> self-organising so the self might know it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Happy New Year >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul Levy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, 30 December 2013, Daniel Mezick wrote: >>> >>> Such a rich topic! Thanks to Marie Ann Östlund for opening this topic. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am compelled to add the following words (verbatim) from RIGHTS OF >>> >>> MAN, by Thomas Paine. The book is quite an interesting read for folks >>> >>> like us. It tends to confirm and join with all of Harrison's key points. >>> >>> >>> >>> My favorite quote in the book: >>> >>> "...society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to >>> >>> government." >>> >>> >>> >>> When he says [society] in the text, he means groups to people who are >>> >>> self-organizing, according to natural propensity. >>> >>> >>> >>> The whole book is here, for free: >>> >>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2H_4_0007 >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting below, from this specific section: >>> >>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2HCH0001 >>> >>> >>> >>> Will you pardon my forwardness? I've taken the liberty of bolding a few >>> >>> words for emphasis: >>> >>> "So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the >>> >>> abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that >>> >>> it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer >>> >>> together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to >>> >>> its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its >>> >>> medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal >>> >>> benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, >>> >>> there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them >>> >>> through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in >>> >>> their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society >>> >>> that it is almost impossible to put him out of it. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and when >>> >>> even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a >>> >>> thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and >>> >>> fundamental principles of society and civilisation—to the common usage >>> >>> universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained—to >>> >>> the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its >>> >>> million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man—it is to >>> >>> these things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best >>> >>> instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of >>> >>> the individual and of the whole depends. >>> >>> >>> >>> "The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for >>> >>> government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and >>> >>> govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to >>> >>> the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the >>> >>> proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that >>> >>> civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that >>> >>> whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect >>> >>> will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that >>> >>> first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate >>> >>> their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we >>> >>> arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the >>> >>> business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each >>> >>> other. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of >>> >>> consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to >>> >>> believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of >>> >>> trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of >>> >>> individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. >>> >>> They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties >>> >>> so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may >>> >>> impose or interpose. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/30/13 11:10 AM, Harrison Owen 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of >>> >>>> OSLIST Go to: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Daniel Mezick, President >>> >>> >>> >>> New Technology Solutions Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> (203) 915 7248 (cell) >>> >>> >>> >>> Bio. Blog. Twitter. >>> >>> >>> >>> Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. >>> >>> >>> >>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. >>> >>> >>> >>> Explore the Agile Boston Community. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > -- > Skye Hirst, PhD > President - The Autognomics Institute > Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself > www.autognomics.org > @autognomics > > New Phone Number: > 207-593-8074 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
