I guess the next question is what does "literal" mean? Skye
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, paul levy <[email protected]> wrote: > Skye, > > The first line is ironic, not literal. Forgive my English soul. > > Paul > > On 01/02/2013, Skye Hirst <[email protected]> wrote: > > How fascinating! You say it's a "thing" then continue to reflect that is > > it a "process." You might want to explore the different metaphysics of > > each. Quite different i think. Heraclitus spoke of "becoming" as more > > alive than things which Plato wanted us to focus on, the fixed ness of > > that which we could touch, see over and over the same way so we could > > examine it closely to know that it was "real" > > > > Yes, it is a "self" process; self knowing, self referencing and > > self-correcting. This is not a thing in the old metaphysics. Thanks for > > your thoughtful comments. This is what they used to call "doing > philosophy" > > Skye > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, paul levy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Well, here's the whole thing... > >> > >> Open Space – 2013 and Beyond > >> > >> > >> Be in no doubt, Open Space Technology is a thing. Harrison Owen > >> specifically called (and continues to call) it a “technology”. It was a > >> new > >> technology designed to replace a tired old one. It was also called a > >> technology at a time when, in management and organisational circles, > >> facilitation methods and approaches were being called “technologies”; > >> also > >> “tools” and “”techniques” – more so in the United States than in the > >> counties and cities of the United Kingdom. This particular technology > was > >> a > >> way of conferencing and getting things done that was way better than > >> over-fussy and over- formalised older “technologies”. > >> > >> It was a neat cultural reaction to a future being painted as robotic, > >> with > >> society’s problems being solved by things of steel, microchip and > >> plastic. > >> By embodying “softer” processes as “technologies” we had a viable > >> alternative to plugging things into our nerve endings and veins. We > could > >> deploy alternative ways of doing things, ways of seeing the world, ways > >> of > >> behaving. If these could be presented simply, and if they could have a > >> kind > >> of enduring repeatability in different situations, then they would be > >> viable alternatives to machines and “stuff”-based innovation. A potent > >> and > >> softer technology to allow us to ride the waves of change. Oh, and of > >> course, it was a wonderful and simple alternative to over-structured, > >> facilitator-heavy meeting process to boot! > >> > >> Open Space Technology is, therefore, presented as a fairly simple, > >> resilient, and, most importantly, transferable and repeatable THING. It > >> is > >> something you sort of “switch on” and, to quote Harrison, it just about > >> “always works”. > >> > >> This particular thing is a “technology” so applicable, timeless and > >> repeatable, because it operates according to natural law. It is an > >> expression, in process, of self-organisation. > >> > >> Open Space Technology isn’t self-organisation as much as > >> self-organisation > >> is Open Space. > >> > >> Now, there’s been a fair amount of discussion in recent years as to what > >> self-organisation is, and Harrison Owen himself has dived into that > >> exciting pool of thinking and dialogue-ing. I think we are very much at > >> the > >> beginning of understanding what self-organisation is. It certainly begs > >> the > >> question “what is the self in self-organisation?”. There are a range of > >> different answers to this and, not surprisingly, they sit on that old > >> cherry of a line that runs from material science to religion and faith. > >> Open Space as a field has always attracted people who see it as an > >> embodiment of natural science in social action through a practical proof > >> and expression of the truth of self-organisation as an underlying > natural > >> law. It has also attracted its fair share of spiritual faithfuls who see > >> it > >> as a magical process for making spiritual potential real in the physical > >> world. It has given birth to articles about biological self-organisation > >> in > >> human social systems, alongside articles about the power of “holding the > >> space”, walking anticlockwise, and the gonging of Tibetan Bells. And > also > >> a > >> fair number of people who see Open Space as uniting science and > >> spirituality in a meeting process that proves both can sit alongside > each > >> other without too much conflict. > >> > >> Harrison Owen himself, when it suits him, expounds thousands of words on > >> Open Space, how to do it, on self-organization, on wave-riding and so > on. > >> When others do the same, especially where attempts are made to elaborate > >> the field, explore it, innovative or develop it, he often suggests that > >> such thinking is a bit of a pointless exercise, and suggests we just go > >> and > >> “open some space”. It’s a charming, grandfatherly way to be, and I don’t > >> mind it at all. > >> > >> As 2013 dawns, I’m convinced that Self-Organisation is Open Space. But I > >> don’t buy the definition that seems to be emerging that the “self” in > >> self-organisation doesn’t refer to individual human selves. It most > >> certainly does. When we contemplate the world (or even universal) > >> process, > >> it is too easy to forget that we are contemplating ourselves as part of > >> that world process. We don’t sit outside of the universe we are a part > >> of. > >> When I derive universal laws of nature, I am also deriving those as laws > >> that flow through me. And yet there is also a process of observation by > >> my > >> self of my self that is then taking place. If I say, “this is true for > >> the > >> universe”, then I am also saying “this is true for me in the universe”. > >> But > >> I am also saying “My self is observing that this is true for me in the > >> universe”. It’s the classic observer part of ourselves that observes our > >> observing! > >> > >> There’s me (“I”), there’s the universe – and there’s also me in the > >> universe and the universe in me. > >> > >> When we self-organise, we both organise as a collective self through > >> community action (the collective circle) but we also observe into the > >> circle from a standpoint that no one else in that circle can occupy. No > >> one > >> can be me. No one can refer to me as ‘I’ except for me! Of course > there’s > >> a > >> danger that such an ego or self-focused view can turn into egotism, > where > >> the self is self-viewed as more important than any other self-views. But > >> there’s also an opportunity to live what Rudolf Steiner described as a > >> community life where, in the mirror of each human, the community finds > >> its > >> reflection and where, in the community, the virtues of each one is > >> living. > >> > >> Self-organisation occurs when the self organises. In community it is a > >> dual process of the self (the individual) observing into the circle from > >> their unique standpoint and where, he or she, also imagines and reaches > >> beyond that singular point, into the circle, a collective space, a > >> community endeavour, where individual selves are also cells connecting > >> into > >> a large self-organising being. > >> > >> This happens sometimes so brilliantly in an improvisation troupe. We see > >> moments of individual genius but also a contribution of each self to a > >> bigger self – the group, and when this joins up and there is flowing > >> collaboration, a synergy arises and the group performance is even > >> greater, > >> never quite explainable in terms of any individual performances. > >> > >> Yes, yes! The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts when the > >> individual offers their self-part to become part of the community, > >> allowing > >> it to self-organise, beyond their own individual ego. We freely flow > into > >> the community, and no one knows or cares who, at that moment is blowing > >> the > >> wind. Equally, we step out of that circle and sing our own tune – the > >> community self-organises, and sometimes we individually self-organise. > >> > >> Situations change, needs in communities and organisations change. > >> Sometimes the lone voice is the only voice that needs to be heard. > >> Sometimes the lone voice needs to quieten and listen to the circle. > >> Sometimes a wonderful mess needs to ensue, a chaos for a while, > sometimes > >> it all needs to be neat. > >> > >> Open Space Technology brings lots of individual selves together and – in > >> a > >> way born of natural genius – creates a market place for selves to > address > >> themselves to a community need, and also for a community need to > manifest > >> in individual, group and even whole circle endeavour. Open Space is a > >> wonderful bridge between individual and collective self. When it is > truly > >> flowing self-organisation is both individual and whole. The dynamic is > >> musical, and often akin to dance – as dance that can been seen both on > >> the > >> stage and under a microscope, or even out in the starry heavens. > >> > >> But sometimes the technology needs adapting. For a very good and > >> important > >> reason that, ironically, lies deep at the heart of self-organisation > >> itself. This is because, although nature itself reveals its laws as > >> timeless, one little experiment in nature appears to elude that > repeating > >> consistency. To quote Steiner again, we will only really begin to > >> understand the human self when we realise that each human being is a > >> unique > >> species of one. Each of us is a new universe, a new emergent day, every > >> single second. There is no technology that can fully hold the space for > >> our > >> emerging selves. Self-organisation then needs to flex, flow and emerge > >> with > >> our own emerging mystery. For Open Space to embody a warm, loving truth, > >> it > >> has to expose itself to … open space. Open Space cannot sit outside of > >> the > >> emergent mystery of uniqueness. It may prove itself for a while as > fairly > >> resilient. But then it becomes dogmatic, rusty, nostalgic and even a bit > >> sad. Self-organising open space technology has to be able include > >> re-organising its-self! > >> > >> What are you scared of? > >> > >> Happy New Year, > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
