Marie and Harrison I think the question "why does self-organisation work" is such a strong one and well worth exploring. I also connect to your notion that "selves" love to each towards each other. The following quote comes to mind:
"We realise ourselves through those around us; they speak to us through our questions of them." I'm also fairly sure that we - as selves - have all been around even longer than the big bang, Harrison. I might even be older than you. Paul On 4 February 2013 22:35, Marie Ann Östlund <[email protected]>wrote: > Thank you Paul for starting this interesting thread. > > Harrison writes: > > "I called it a “puckish” question (maybe “impish” would be better) if only > because it represents a delightful misstatement of the usual understanding > of “self” in the phrase “self organization,” which of course has nothing to > do with “selves” per se, but rather the perceived fact that organization > takes place all on its own – all by itself. But your twist is all to a > greater purpose, I believe: Driving straight to a really juicy question – > Who are we in a self organizing world?" > > We may also ask: why does self-organisation work? What is the impetus for > self-organisation? And the answer to that question may help us towards a > more subtle understanding of the self - not as a lone ranger in competition > with the world and other selves, but as a connected self (or a self > striving for connection) that enjoys giving, loving, contributing to the > whole - the both/and *personal* satisfaction of being connected to the * > whole*. We self-organise because we love it. That's what inspires me in > open space. > > Otherwise, I have a hard time with the idea that self-organisation happens > entirely by its own, almost like a chemical process. Take away stuff that > stops self/organisation and whoops - self-organisation happens. Yes, it > does happen, but why? Just saying - it does - does not really satisfy me. > Could it be that it has something to do with what we are as selves? Could > it be that we as selves want to connect and contribute, that we as selves > are loving beings after all. It may very much have to do with the self bit > in self-organisation. > > "People will say that they never have felt so valued and respected for who > and what they are (individual selves) – and simultaneously remark on the > intense experience of community to the point that the difference of selves > is hardly noticeable, and sometimes simply disappears. All one flowing > whole. That is the dance. That is self organization at work, I think." > > Exactly. The perfect dance between being a self in the world, and the > world in the self :) Thank you. > > All the best, > > Marie Ann > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Paul – thank you for re-posting your blog here on OSLIST. I truly enjoyed >> and learned from your thinking because it represents the sort of sensitive >> probing necessary for beginning to understand the funny thing we have >> called Open Space Technology, and the infinitely deeper reality of Self >> Organization. As for your puckish question, “What is the ‘self’ in Self >> Organization?” – Marvelous. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I called it a “puckish” question (maybe “impish” would be better) if only >> because it represents a delightful misstatement of the usual understanding >> of “self” in the phrase “self organization,” which of course has nothing to >> do with “selves” per se, but rather the perceived fact that organization >> takes place all on its own – all by itself. But your twist is all to a >> greater purpose, I believe: Driving straight to a really juicy question – >> Who are we in a self organizing world?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> There are some folks who seem to think that a self organizing world >> annihilates the self – that it somehow eradicates our own unique identity >> and agency. We are pawns in a larger game, and very helpless pawns. The end >> of such thinking seems to lie in one of two spots. Either we are just the >> flotsam and jetsam in an unfeeling ocean with little to be or do – OR -- >> the whole thing is non-sense. Ann Rand lives, and the notion of self >> organization is simply the product of an overactive, collectivist plot.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> I suspect that neither of these conclusions is valid, although both have >> a contribution to make. At issue is our propensity for either/or thinking, >> when both/and is much more effective in this situation. Not to be opaque – >> it is common to think of the “self” and the “organization” as two separate >> entities, which should never be confused or combined. To do so is to >> destroy both. There is a degree of comfort here, if only because I am I – >> and all those other poor blokes (the organization) can do what they bloody >> well want to! The preservation of the Self as an island fortress may be a >> comfort– but I don’t find it to be all that useful or accurate in the long >> run. It is more about both/and.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Put somewhat differently Self and Organization are, in my view, polar >> concepts, and integrally related; you can’t have one without the other. In >> the world of philosophy this is often referred to as the self/world >> correlation, which means simply that you never had a self apart from a >> world/organization and *vice versa.* This may seem a little obtuse, but >> I think we would all agree that you have never seen an organization that >> was not composed of selves. And the reverse is also true. Sounds a little >> strange maybe, but if I ask you who you are you will reply in some >> language, and if English that will tell me that one organization you are >> part of is the Anglophone world. And the likelihood is that you will >> continue with something like, “I am an engineer, at IBM – or whatever. Self >> and World in polarity.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Things get more dynamic, some might say sloppy, from this point on. >> Both/and thinking is a way (certainly not the only way) of thinking/talking >> about a dance between two poles. In this case Self and Organization. “We” >> (as individuals or collectives) are neither one and always on the way to >> the other. Kind of boggles the mind and maybe a needless sophistry – but >> begins to capture an experience we all share: Open Space.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Over the years of Open Space, I have noticed in myself and in the reports >> of fellow participants an odd contradiction which is actually a paradox. >> People will say that they never have felt so valued and respected for who >> and what they are (individual selves) – and simultaneously remark on the >> intense experience of community to the point that the difference of selves >> is hardly noticeable, and sometimes simply disappears. All one flowing >> whole. That is the dance. That is self organization at work, I think.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> It is surely fun to think and share, particularly when we reach the edges >> of our certainty and the power of our expression. I do love this crazy >> OSLIST! And if that makes me Grandfatherly, Paul – so be it. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Harrison **** >> >> ** ** >> >> 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20> **** >> >> www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)**** >> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of >> OSLIST Go to: >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *paul levy >> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2013 8:14 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [OSList] Open Space – 2013 and Beyond**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > "Start by doing what’s necessary; then do what’s possible; and suddenly > you are doing the impossible." ~ Saint Francis of Assisi > > _______________________________________________ > 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
