Thank you Peggy and David I' will think over all your answers
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Peggy Holman <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a different response to Christine’s question: > > if we want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should we do ?” > > > I’d say take responsibility for what you love. > > A system exists through the interactions among its diverse agents. Some of > those agents, whether in an organism or in an organization, attend to the > system’s health. Think of the role of kidneys for flushing out toxins. In > human systems, people, rather than cells, organize stuff. You could argue > that hierarchies are an overcompensation of a system that ultimately leaves > unflushed toxicity in its wake, sometimes killing off the organization. Or > at least making it function in less optimal ways. > > As David said, as we come to understand principles of self-organizing, > we’re better equipped to do stuff that is congruent with natural patterns. > I think current trends towards network forms of organizing are a promising > experiment in a system’s agents working with those natural principles. Sort > of a permaculture for human systems. > > > Christine, to your questions about size: > > But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or does it mean that any > system that is too large to come regularly together as a whole is oversized > ? should split into several smaller systems to keep its good health > > > Important questions. I suspect as we learn more about how networks > function, the answers to your questions will get clearer. I can only > speculate. I can imagine people meeting on behalf of the whole in > transparent ways that are open to anyone who cares to show up. And if > overwhelming numbers want to be there, perhaps intersecting circles come > into play. Layers of wholeness exist in systems. So those who feel called > to convene on behalf of the whole take responsibility for it. And connect > with others who share in that sort of stewarding function. Holding it all > lightly and not working too hard, of course. :-) > > Just mulling… > > > Peggy > > > > _________________________________ > Peggy Holman > [email protected] > Twitter: @peggyholman > > 15347 SE 49th Place > Bellevue, WA 98006 > 425-746-6274 > www.peggyholman.com > www.journalismthatmatters.org > > *Enjoy the award winning *Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into > Opportunity <http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/> > Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information > ecosystem<http://www.journalismthatmatters.net/the_emerging_news_and_information_eco_system> > > "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get > burnt, is to become > the fire". > -- Drew Dellinger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, David Osborne <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Christine, > > I think the tendency toward coherence or fragmentation is the > organizing principle. > > I see supporting coherence as a part of the process, not an organizing > principle in itself. It's a choice, similar to the other individual and > group choices that are a part of self-organization. > > Most of us here on the list serve choose to facilitate / host open space > sessions. I'd suggest this choice usually leads to building coherence. So > it is with other coherence supporting choices.The system may or may not do > it itself. > > Another way I would frame it is that organizations I frequently work in > are stuck in patterns that they are dissatisfied or frustrated with. Think > poor business results, customer satisfaction, work environment, employee > engagement / satisfaction etc. Control is the great inhibitor of > self-organization and often prevents new coherent patterns being able to > emerge. I find that I can often guide or make suggestions that enable > these groups to tap into the power of organization to create new > self-reinforcng patterns that they prefer. And my involvement and the > choice to be open to my suggestions are all choices that are part of the > self-organization. I'm suggesting that we / they that support coherence are > also part of the self-organizing, not separate from it. > > I don't mean to be cryptic in my above comments. I find myself > continuing to build my own (and hopefully shared) language that describes > self-organization. I loved the statement earlier in this exchange that > compared self-organization to gravity. I do believe they are both laws that > operate invisibly all the time. The point made was that understanding > gravity is key to being able to fly to the moon. I think similarly the more > we understand and can share the principles of self-organization, we can > help humanity fly versus staying stuck in conflict and competition.Thus my > continual search to find better ways of sharing and communicating. > > I'm really enjoying tracking and participating in this dialogue and > thanks to all that are contributing and listening/reading. > > David > 703-939-1777 > [email protected] > <image.png> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Christine > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi David >> >> Very interesting, that makes sense to me. Does it mean that supporting >> coherence of the system as a whole should be an organizing principle ? >> But then Harrison will say I guess that it is not necessary, as self >> org. will take care of the system itself. >> Then there is something that I don't understand about self-org. : if we >> want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should we do ? >> >> Christine Koehler >> 06 13 28 71 38 >> >> >> Le 9 janv. 2014 à 22:20, David Osborne < [email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >> I found the questions about how do you keep a system as a coherent >> whole fascinating. >> >> Part of the dance is the back and forth between coherence and >> fragmentation. Chaos offers both opportunity and threat, new life and >> death. Coherence leads to new life patterns emerging, fragmentation leads >> towards death and the cycle toward new life continues. In my experience >> there is lot's that can be done to reinforce, nurture and support >> coherence. Holding the space is one aspect. Drawing attention and building >> consensus around what is emerging is another, supporting parts of the >> system through conflict in a manner that continues to increase the >> likelihood of coherence is a third. There are many more...and those are >> some quick thoughts for now. All of this can and is done with in the >> context of self-organization and someone having the passion and taking the >> initiative to do it. The two are not mutually exclusive. >> >> Cheers to all. >> >> David >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, christine koehler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Peggy >>> >>> If I simplify what you say (and I apologize for it), I understand that >>> you say that what keep a self-organized system coherent as a whole is >>> coming regularly together as a whole, following our two feet to sessions >>> called around we love, coming back as a whole, dispersing again for the >>> evening. Of course I would tend to agree with that. But then how do you do >>> with very large systems ? Or does it mean that any system that is too large >>> to come regularly together as a whole is oversized ? should split into >>> several smaller systems to keep its good health ? >>> >>> and what about decision making ? >>> >>> Christine >>> end 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
