Great thread! To Paul's question > what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior? >
Harrison referenced one of Kauffman's conditions for self-organizing -- the search for fitness. I believe that in human systems, the search for fitness looks like a search for meaning. Harrison said: You don’t have a self without a world, nor do you have a world without selves. It is not one OR the other, but definitely a both/and. Dialectic, polar, all at once. Nice I always thought. Nice thing about a search for meaning. It can start as a solo act. And you may pick up friends along the way. Sometimes that evolves into a movement (Agile, Open Space, etc.). And sometimes it even disappears into a world view. Or not. Peggy Sent from my iPad 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com > On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:59 AM, "Harrison Owen" <hho...@verizon.net> wrote: > > Dan said: : “what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior?” Good > question indeed. Stuart Kaufmann (Biologist) says that one of the conditions > for self organization is what he calls, “The search for fitness.” I take this > to be a modification of Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest.” The idea is that > self organizing systems engage in a search for ways to enhance the way they > fit with the environment and fit together internally. Those most fully > aligned with the environment, with all their parts engaged tend to survive. > Works for me. > > 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 > www.ho-image.com (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: oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org > [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mezick > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 5:51 PM > To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org > Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game > > I'm loving the richness of this conversation. I'm loving it so much! > > One question that comes up for me repeatedly, as I read and ponder the > responses to OST-as-game: what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing > behavior? Is the question even worth answering? If so, why so? If not, why > not? > > Where do I go, with this line of reasoning? Here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology > > > On 10/14/13 4:53 PM, Harrison Owen wrote: > Paul – Can always count on you. Thanks > > 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:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org > [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of paul levy > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 4:48 PM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game > > Harrison > > Whatever you experienced as OST when it first escaped has largely become a > game. A game of training. A game of "go back to base and read the manual". > Even you play a regular game on here as one of the elders who keep defending > OST against change (oh yes you do). It's become a game with a book of > instructions with bells, anti-clockwise circle walking and "rules". That's a > shame and, thankfully, fairly pointless as it keeps on escaping in different > and lovely ways anyway. > > Now, opening space, that's something really worth trying... > > (Waits as the usual elders line up to deliver their wise pronouncements)... > > So it goes. > > Paul Levy > > > > On Monday, 14 October 2013, Harrison Owen wrote: > A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a good cause, I > hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the assigned material about > broken reality and culture hacking. Interesting journey! And along the way I > came upon an odd realization – I really just don’t like games! Seems it had > something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just loved games, > and she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well. Unfortunately that aversion > carried on into my adult life, particularly as it related to the so called > Group Dynamics games that we were all supposed to play prior to serious > discussion. Seems like you just couldn’t have an adult interchange without > some “warm-up” to break the ice. Or so they said. Really bugged me. I just > couldn’t believe that consenting adults could not communicate without some > elaborate foreplay – funny tools drawn from the omnipresent Facilitator’s > Tool Box. > > So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be something > of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that given reasonable > conditions, human beings could sit down and talk productively with each other > – all by themselves. As adults. It did take two martinis to get me there... > but “there” was (guess what) Open Space. We have been doing that ever since, > and it turns out that children do just as well. > > What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother, Facilitators, > etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and experience it has become > clearer and clearer that the less I do the better things work. It is not that > I have no agency or contribution, but it does turn out that the ambient > wisdom and capacity of the individuals and groups that I am privileged to > interact with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very well to fold my > hands and shut my mouth. Anything else has me working much too hard, and > generally messing things up... Such are the eye glasses through which I view > my world. Distorted perhaps, and different for sure, but I’m stuck with it. > And it is through those glasses that I read my assignments, beginning with > “Reality is Broken.” > > Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me) world of Game > Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly understand why she has created a > stir, and I applaud her massive research and clear prose. That said, my > reaction was close to horror, and the thought that the world and techniques > she describes should become a model and a means to fix our world was pretty > close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to my aforementioned > phobia – but I suspect that others might share such feelings. Two points > stand out in my mind—Gaming is addictive, a point she develops in infinite > detail, and secondly that good Game Makers actually capitalize on this > phenomenon and make every effort to enhance the addictive power. Their > success is obvious and awesome. It seems that one massive, online game > attracted 5,000,000 man/years of attention. George Orwell, where are you now > that we need you? > > I joke a bit – and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says, “Reality is > Broken,” I feel constrained to ask, Who’s reality? Not mine, for sure. It is > not that I experience every day as a walk in the park, but there have been > precious few moments when I have felt bored, without challenge, > non-productive and unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and > colleagues around the world who seemingly have a similar experience. > Doubtless that makes us odd, perhaps aberrant, but there is a certain > consolation in numbers. We are not alone. > > When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my reality they > include such things as the indeterminacy of my surroundings. The moment I > think I know where it is all headed, I am confounded by the twists of > happenstance. Then there is the total lack of clarity when it comes to goals > and objectives. Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about every time > I have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn’t turn out that way – > usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I certainly have > never found them. Of course there are moments when I think it is all a > dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But even that has its positive: I > know I am alive. So for me, my reality is doing just fine. Exciting, > challenging, growthful, rewarding -- In fact it seems to be working perfectly. > > I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if reality > for them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it? Or could it be > that it isn’t really broken, they just think it is, if only because it > doesn’t measure up to their expectations. That would certainly be the case if > reality was supposed to work by clear cut rules, heading in a pre-determined > direction, always under somebody’s control. That understanding of reality is > certainly alternate to anything I know anything about. It just never > happened, and if it did I believe it would be unendingly boring. But that > might account for the Game Maker’s success – for if I read Jane correctly, > that is pretty much the reality they create. And if that is the reality you > want, no wonder people spend 5 million man/years immersed in it! > > And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not according to > Jane’s rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a correlation with Jane’s first > criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self Selection, and a second one relating to > Good Feedback (we might say documentation). But it seems to me it all goes > downhill from there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I have yet to > encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law, but none of them > are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to emerge no matter what you > do – all by themselves. As for a clear goal, I think you have precisely the > opposite. Everything begins with a question, and under the best of > circumstances there is no attachment to outcomes. As we say, Whatever happens > is the only thing that could have. > > Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game – what is it? > > Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation... > > OST... is ... Life. > > It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending revelation. In > fact it doesn’t DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and quietly invites us to be, > fully, what we already are – ourselves. It really is shocking. Just be > yourself as you really are. Drawn by a question (Quest) – you are invited to > explore what you really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior > exclusions (givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be yourself > and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do you really > care about? And if you care, take responsibility for what you care about. > Nobody else will. And you don’t need an act of Congress, Parliament, the > Legislature, or the writings of the latest Guru. It’s just you. > > But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in the assumed > responsibility? In advance you simply don’t know, nor can you predict. But > when it happens, you know it happens. Life not only goes on – it gets deeper > and richer with the shared passions and responsibilities that weave the rich > tapestry of the human odyssey. > > I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears re-singing. The > temptation to change this simple invitation into some complex process, > procedure, structure is almost overwhelming, driven I am sure by our hope to > improve and also perhaps to make it something we own or do. Something that > requires the professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the matter, I > believe, is that there really isn’t anything to improve and still less to do. > Above all, Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, and always think of one less thing > to do. > > So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more exactly the > relationship between the two? Closely united, I believe – but perhaps not in > the way that Dan and others seem to be suggesting, even though that way > appears to be eminently rational and definitely a good plan. > > I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is an elegant > set of principles which await implementation (adoption) through some method > or process, SCRUM for example. The principles are magnificent and represent > the latest iteration of a longish tradition beginning perhaps with Quality > Circles, and passing through Excellent Organizations (Tom Peters et al), > Learning Organizations, with possibly a side trip through Process > Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures, and protocols > were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into everyday practice. In > every case the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the several efforts was > considerable (aided I suspect by the fat consulting fees that could be > generated). And in every case I believe we learned many useful lessons. > However, in terms of the desired outcome, which might be described as > “enhanced organizational function,” I think the record is less than positive. > Only people of a certain age will even remember Quality Circles, Excellent > Organizations seem evident mostly by their absence, The Society of > Organizational Learning disbanded last year, and Process Engineering has been > retired by general consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane McGonigal may > just have written the epitaph, “Reality is Broken.” Whether Agile and its > several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a similar fate > remains to be seen. > > Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and accomplish > so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but one stands out for me. > We’ve been trying to organize self organizing systems. This is a thankless > task if only because we will never get it right; the systems involved (our > businesses, countries, organizations) are so complex, inter-related, and fast > moving that we can’t even think at that level – let alone effectively > structure and control them. Even worse it seems all too often that our best > efforts and intentions make the situation worse – our fixes end up with > painful unintended consequences. But worst of all our efforts are not needed > because the system itself, all by itself, can do a better job. Frankly our > efforts are just plain clunky. > > It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been less than > successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but not by facilitating > the adoption Agile as a set of principles, but in a much more immediate and > direct fashion: by enabling Agility. The principles are definitely nice, but > what we truly care about is real, meaningful, organizational agility, which > others might call High Performance, and Open Space demonstrably delivers on > that score. My favorite story, of course is the AT&T design team for the ’96 > Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed a $200,000,000 structure which had > taken them 10 months on a previous effort. That is a 15,000% increase in > productivity. Not bad. > > If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be interesting > but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how does all that work? It > is just a well functioning self organizing system. And if you ask whether it > is all scalable – the answer is it is already scaled to the highest levels. > Been around for 13.7 billion years, and the Cosmos (along with everything > else) is the product. Don’t adopt Agile, BE agile. Honestly, it is a natural > condition if we stop trying to fix it. > > So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain’t broke and serious > Agility is available any time we want to open the space to let it happen. And > if you were wondering who all those friends and colleagues around the world > who know that their reality is unbroken (albeit painful sometimes) you can > start by looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about all those folks who > have wandered into Open Space to discover, many times in spite of themselves > – that deep, meaningful, productive, playful, respectful encounters with > their fellows can and do happen. That is just a taste, of course – but it can > happen all the time -- 24X7. I know. > > > Harrison > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harrison Owen > > 7808 River Falls Dr. > > Potomac, MD 20854 > > From: > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
