I’ve been lurking for a while and I also want to thank John for reminding us all of the useful definitions of open systems, self-organization and the nature of reality. Yes they are social constructions that inquiry has developed but they make sense to me.
Larry Larry Peterson & Associates in Transformation Toronto, Ontario, Canada <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 416.653.4829 <http://www.spiritedorg.com/> http://www.spiritedorg.com From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Osborne Sent: September-20-11 7:23 PM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] Designing an OS way I meant to type whether they are far from or close to equilibrium !!! Sent from my iPad On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:55 PM, David Osborne <[email protected]> wrote: I think Open Space will work wether the share Oscar from equilibrium or close to equilibrium as I suspect is born out by the thousands of successful examples. It seems to me the critical ingredients in boteh these situations are; is there enough diversity present and is there enough passion/caring/ energy present in the space. David Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2011, at 1:45 PM, John Watkins <[email protected]> wrote: Great questions, Michael! I think when I am feeling optimistic (most of the time) I see OST as creating one of those "far from equilibrium states" that Prigogine and Stengers talk about as enabling new orders to emerge; however, in less sanguine times, I could also imagine OST as just a "subsystem fluctuation" enabling larger system stability. But I think that most of our larger systems these days are exhibiting something like either disequilibrium or bifurcation points, so maybe OST is able to restructure the system architecture so fundamentally that a new order could emerge. Weick talks about that restructuring of the system architecture in order to change the "flows" of energy in the system. I think Bateson referred to one kind of larger system disequilibrium as an "uptight system," where at least one of the "variables" is "pinned" at its upper or lower limits of its range of flexibility, resulting in that rigidity rippling through the whole system. Rigid systems change more easily, but not usually in a very pretty way: chaotic bursts, turbulence, tumbling into chaos, new orders emerging spontaneously... John On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Michael Herman wrote: yes, thanks, john. and... where does os practice drop into either of these? in bateson terms, it seems open space meetings would be an alternative state that organizations are unconsciously working to prevent? how does something like working in an open space way become part of the equilbrium state that is then automatically preserved by continually returning from anything that's alternative to that way of being in organization? in lemke terms, there seems a place for operating in open space, but will it always require what sounds like a crisis, choice-point to be helpful? how does working in an open space way become normal in systems that are storied in this way? m -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://ManorNeighbors.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, John Watkins <[email protected]> wrote: Michael, I think Gregory Bateson addressed the question of equilibrium most eloquently a long time ago in his great book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind! And I've seen some great analysis of it in Jay Lemke's book, Textual Politics. Let's see if I can find the relevant quotes... Bateson: Systems “…maintain a dynamic equilibrium or steady state… [through] maximiz[ing] the chances against the maximization of any single simple variable” (124). “The steady state is maintained by continual nonprogressive change” (125). What Bateson noticed was that allowable levels of fluctuations in some subset of a larger system were used to create relative stability in the larger system, but that those fluctuations never led to fundamental shifts in the architecture of the system, as they continually shifted out of and then returned to a kind of dynamic equilibrium. It is a “corrective action… brought about by [the awareness of] difference” (Bateson, 1972:381). A social system “…does not elect the steady state; it prevents itself from staying in any alternative state” (381). Or, “[T]he constancy and survival of some larger system is maintained by changes in the constituent subsystem” (Bateson, 1972:339). Lemke calls that a “meta-stable non-equilibrium” (Lemke, 1995:11). He goes on to argue that as social systems develop, they become more ordered and differentiated, increasingly complex, and as such, demonstrate irreversibility. At some point, in various layers of their hierarchy (hierarchy in systems theory is not the same as hierarchy of authority or knowledge, e.g., bureaucracy; it is a concept of scale, in scope, time, or space), open, complex systems begin to demonstrate non-symmetry, or the possibility of bifurcation (branching, “choice” points), due to the amplified, interacting oscillations of various sub-systems. Bifurcation in larger systems can enable larger out-of-equilibrium fluctuations in, or unpredictable interactions between, sub-systems to result in evolutionary, or adaptive, change in the larger system... Does this help? John On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Michael Herman wrote: i want to echo florian's appreciation for your story, john, thank you. and i have a question about "equilibrium." in financial markets, gene fama won a nobel prize for his theory of "efficient" markets, suggesting that markets always reflected all current information, immediately returning to "equilbrium" after every news release, so that above-normal returns were not possible. many now question or dismiss this. so, in a world that is always moving, what does the theory you described so nicely have to say about equilibrium? does it then lead into questions about locality and "self" ...the department might be in equilibrium but the company is falling apart, or vice versa... so the boundaries of the "self" that is being invited to organize or re-organize really matter. mostly i'm just wondering if you can say more to map the open systems, thermodynamics, and esp equilibrium story to what we have all seen happening in organizations and open spaces. is "equilibrium" the same as "normal?" m -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://ManorNeighbors.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
