Peggy Wrote: It has been my belief for years that voting sets up a dynamic of taking people from an experience in another way of organizing back into the familiar.
Peggy and all -- my experience is similar. I observe the energy of the group and the room change when moving to voting. The high energy often turns into almost a suspension of energy. My perception might be that people are moving back into the "same old thing" and are disappointed -- at this point, I am still watching. And then there is Michael H's non-convergence!! The points on democracy are well taken. And in the midst of the OST event, self-governance can be evident -- and what about after the event when actions are not fulfilled? I know, I know whatever happens is the only thing..... <grin> Judi ----- Original Message ----- From: Peggy Holman <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:27 PM Subject: Re: Democracy and Open Space > >From Michael M Pannwitz: > > > Dear Kerry, > > why vote? > > Ah, Michael, what a wonderful question! Why indeed? I cheer to hear you > say: > > >...regard the result of the prioritisation (or consolidation) only as > additional information about their system and not as the main basis for > direct >action. Proposals for actions are invited after reading the > proceedings or after the reading and prioritisation (or consolidation). > > It has been my belief for years that voting sets up a dynamic of taking > people from an experience in another way of organizing back into the > familiar. While it may make the trip home safer, it misses an opportunity > for experiencing a whole shift in thinking about how decisions are made. > > Open Space invites alignment. It is not about consensus or majority rule > but rather about passionate, responsible action that is informed by > individual passion and responsibility coupled with an immersion into a > collective inquiry that seems to create a greater sense of interdependence > and alignment, even at times, collective consciousness. I can act alone or > with others who are attracted to my proposal. I don't need permission. > While this sounds like it could really get out of control, there does seem > to be some sort of self-correcting force at work. > > I find stories hard to come by, perhaps in part because butterfly > conversations may be a common place that someone lets go of an idea that > may be well intentioned but not productive. > > > Michael Pannwitz said: > > I keep reminding myself that open space is an action and planning > > methodology and a window opener to the open space nature of all > > organisations and not a process of "democracy" (see Birgitts note on > > democracy). > > I wonder if Open Space is a powerful expression of democracy? Open Space is > grounded in passion and responsibility. I remember being taught that > democracy is about freedom and responsibility. The first of the definitions > from Birgitt (thank for them) is "government by the people, either directly > or through elected representatives." In ongoing Open Space, is not taking > responsible action on that which someone cares about in the context of a > purpose and givens that interconnect participants an act of self-governance? > > > > Peggy > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected], > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
