Discussion on Truth, OSE’s, Godel, Reality Models What is “Truth” depends largely on one’s model of reality, I think. One’s model of reality is generally built on the cultural frame one is raised in as well as one’s personal experiences of what works and what doesn’t work, or work well enough. If this is ‘true’, then ‘truth’ is contextual, both as to time and geography (space). (One need only remember Galileo having to recant his hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun in order to save his life to see how powerful organizational ‘truth’ can be in its ‘current reality’.)
Further, I think that reality dictates to me, I do not dictate to reality. Our task, therefore, is to discover what works, in reality (more on this in a moment). Godel’s Theorem states that “For any system of integer arithmetic, a proposition can be put that can be neither proved or disproved within the system.” Godel’s Theorem is based on paradox, which is a statement that makes a statement about itself. It is itself, it’s own ‘box’. By Godelian reasoning, therefore, every model of reality is necessarily inconsistent or incomplete or both. (I am indebted to an article by Prof. Robert Hall in the second quarter 2001 Target magazine of the Association for Manufacturing Excellence for provoking and aiding the discussion in this and part of the following paragraph.) And, since there is no way a human can comprehend the whole universe, we all live in a box bounded by our observation, learning and experience---which may become our truth. The danger is, of course, if it becomes “The Truth”. My perception of Open Space Technology, itself a model of reality, is that it is a system/process for helping people express themselves in a self-organizing way and ‘think outside the box’---the box often being corporate or organizational rules, regulations, culture, ‘the way we do things around here’---and every organized system has these, even OST. Godel says we can’t self-reference OST in evaluating OST as a system. We have to begin to think from the outside in----a difficult prospect if we get caught up in truth. Further, according to discussions held here, there have been Open Space Events (OSE’s) that were, in military parlance, “limited successes”. Maybe even failures. In essence, they didn’t work well enough to meet the needs of the situation---the reality in which they occurred. This makes one very tentative in proclaiming a truth about any given system, even OST. However, there are some questions we might choose to ask ourselves that may enhance the chances of a “successful” event. I say "may", because chaos is also part of our reality and we never can be sure we have it in a box. We have already had several valuable contributions from people’s experiences that speak to elements of these questions. 1. What are the minimum necessary preconditions and context needed to enable an OSE to “work”? 2. What might we define as an OSE that “works”? (Is people going away feeling good about the event enough? Or, is a successful OSE one that has needed outcomes as defined by the client system?) 3. Is a successful OSE, like truth, contextual? 4. Should a successful OSE, at a minimum, create meaning? That is, make a difference in its own context? Should these differences be observable, concrete, that on which action can be taken? Or, is an inner change sufficient? Is there a holy grail of an OSE? Interesting thread of discussion, thank you to all those who are contributing from their own reality which has their truths embedded in it. :) Sincerely, J. Paul Everett, Consultant World Class Performance jpesee...@aol.com * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
