Thank you Skye! I will have to dance with your text some more to grasp it. There is a lot in it. I like your two cents. :)
To clarify, I'm not a Habermasian, even if I sympathise with his social theory and admire his intellectual honesty. I agree with you that the organising laws of life is the next frontier - and maybe there is place for desire, personality, difference in what we call life/spirit? ;) A questions: I'm wondering if we sometimes use emergence and self-organisation inter-changeably and maybe they are different? Thank you. Marie Ann On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Paul Nunesdea <nunes...@me.com> wrote: > 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.pdfIf >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ 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
