Harrison,
I was going to ask you to say more about "High Play", but it was easy to
learn more about your ideas here with a quick google search. From
http://www.openspaceworld.com/Opening%20Space%20for%20The%20Question.htm. The
emphasis is mine.
High Play denotes the manner in which the people involved approach
their task -- playfully. Quite often play is understood to be a
trivial incidental compared to the real business of living. I think
this is a profound error. Play for me may be the most serious
(important) of our many undertakings. The importance of play derives
from the fact that when we experience reality in different and
unexpected ways, *we seek to understand (develop knowledge about)
**our new experience by telling likely stories, or in more formal
terms, creating theories*. We take the available evidence, combined
with our prior experience and try to construct reasonable
explanations for the newly observed phenomenon. Almost inevitably
our first attempts are flawed, and it is often the case that there
are as many theories (stories) as people telling them. If everybody
treats their version as the "gospel truth" it is not long before the
dead hand of dogma descends, and the search for understanding
degenerates into a fight amongst ideologues. On the other hand,
when people treat their new adventure in a playful fashion, there
may well be serious competition, but there is also deep respect for
the "opponents," and a real joy in the game. In Open Space it is
very common to see the game of knowledge building played with real
skill and enjoyment -- even by people who have never done anything
like that before.
I really like the presence of "real joy in the game" of finding the best
likely stories (theories). I also love the value you express for "deep
respect for the 'opponents'".
Game on!
Harold
On 1/11/14 11:58 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Harold -- I like your last line,"If we can hold our theories in the
same fashion as "a likely story", maybe we'll start being able to tell
better stories (theories)." Actually, my words for this are High Play.
I've found that good theory building is best done playfully, which
does not make it a trivial activity, but it does guard against
dogmatism. Good theory, playfully created, and playfully held is
always open to revision -- or just plain discard.
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.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Harold
Shinsato
*Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 7:55 PM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] From linkedin today
Harrison,
It seemed like you were having a problem with understanding when you
wrote the following:
"When I was confronted with what was happening in Open Space (25 years
ago) it made absolutely no sense to me at all. And what makes no sense
does not lend itself to understanding. I "knew," as did everybody else
of my age, background and training -- that what seemed to be taking
place in Open Space simply could not happen. Organization was
something that we created, managed, and controlled."
There are so many theoretical frameworks that have begun to embody the
more adaptive systems thinking required maybe not to fully understand,
but to start to improve our models of organization not something as
something we impose - but something that we can nurture, cultivate, or
just open ourselves to experience.
It seems like this thread has been about understanding
self-organization. I love that you brought something from Quantum
Mechanics that "somebody's formulation was good, but not crazy enough
to be true." This reminds me of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao that can be
spoken is not the true Tao.
It reminds me a lot of what you wrote in Spirit, and which you
mentioned in your TED talk. Story tellers don't tell the truth. But in
the story, truth emerges. Probably between the words.
If we can hold our theories in the same fashion as "a likely story",
maybe we'll start being able to tell better stories (theories).
Harold
On 1/10/14 5:08 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Harold -- I have no problem with "understanding." Good and useful
enterprise. Question is: Understanding of what? And in what frame
or context. I think we have come to a point where we "understand"
Jthat there are multiple logics, each appropriate to different
senses of reality. Newtonian Physics really does work. AND Quantum
Mechanics was/is crazy. In fact one of the framers of Quantum
Mechanics (Heisenberg I think) remarked that that somebody's
formulation was good, but not crazy enough to be true. Or
something. I think we may be at a similar paradigm/shift point.
We'll see how it all turn out.
--
Harold Shinsato
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
