At 12:35 AM 10/18/01 +0100, Artur wrote:
4.2 the main point I think that must be reviewed is the principle "whatever happens is the only thing that should". Applied generally it includes one word that is self-contradictory. The word "should" presupposes that a special order should occur on a chaos situation and that is never true. A complex situation, an open system, can have many "strange atractors" it is by chance that one is followed and not others.
Actually -- as Winston points out -- the word is could not "Should." Rather different, I think. There is no value judgement here -- just a simple recognition of what is.
5.5. Hence, organizations and countries live in constrained situations, and at the social level the self-organization of Open systems rarely apply, because we face closed or constrained systems. 6. So, for me, Open Space and/or OST happen only in situations where those "normal" constraints are removed or circunvened - or where constraints are accepted as constrains to deal with, and not as "givens" to please the sponsors.
Constraints are definitely with us -- including the force of gravity, The laws of thermodynamics, the speed of light -- none of which prevent the process of self-organization, but rather set the context. In organizations of all sorts (businesses, countries etc) there are also constraints, but I suggest they do not stop (prevent) the process of self-organization either -- merely set the context. So when the policies of a business prevent the performance of a task, we create "work-arounds." When you get a lot of "work arounds" we used to talk about "the informal organization" -- which for me is but a code name (alternative name) for the self-organization. Interestingly enough it was (is?) the job of management to curtail the informal organization. Fortunately, that never quite happens, and when it does, the organization typically dies. When I look at an organization in terms of how it actually does business, relative to how it says it does business, I come to the interesting conclusion that if we actually did business the way we say we do business -- we would be out of business. Which brings me to the whole notion of a "closed system." Such a system never existed. The notion was first generated in a laboratory environment in an effort to control variables in an experiment. But all good scientists knew this was an academic fiction, useful in the moment, but never to be take too seriously. Something always gets through. It is just hoped that whatever breaks through will be so minimal as to fall below the level of noticeable effect. In short it can be effectively ignored. And when you can't ignore it -- you have to re-design the experiment. Back in the early part of the last century, with the rise of Scientific Management, the notion of a "closed system" crossed over from the laboratories and into the Board Rooms as well as Cabinet Rooms. But the understanding that this was an academic fiction failed to come along -- and folks took the notion seriously. They actually thought they could close the system. Truthfully, you can sort of close the system, but it takes a willing conspiracy of all participants to do so. Very much the Emperor's Clothes Syndrome. Then some young kid comes along and says the old dude is buck naked. The "young kid" in this case was all those wild folks who developed Chaos Theory, complexity theory -- and related strange ideas. Out of which has come our current understanding of the function of self-organizing systems. Interesting. So when I hear George W. Bush proclaim loudly that he is in control -- presumably of this tightly closed system known as the United States -- I do have to laugh a bit. The real sadness, however, (after the humor) is that I rather thinks he believes it. Put rather bluntly, this is simple delusion. And like all delusions -- it distorts or prevents a clear perception of what is actually going on -- which from where I sit is the on-going process of self-organization which has been operative since the moment of the Big Bang, or so it seems. The smart money would learn to maximize potential under the existing reality. I think bin Laden and Company are doing just that, consciously or not. This whole thing might actually be worth while if it enabled all of us to experience a blinding flash of the obvious. We (that is all 6 billion of us) are a living, open, self-organizing system. We are all in this together, and nobody is in charge. And if any one body manages to close the system down, we will all have bought the farm. As for Open Space... I persist in the mad notion that there is nothing new and different. Nothing special -- just business are usual in the life of any organism. This is why there is no training needed. We already know. But there is an enormous opportunity for deep reflection and a good deal of unlearning. And that, I think is the opportunity of the moment. Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, MD 20854 USA phone 301-469-9269 Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org Personal website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected] Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
