Dear Michael (Berlin)
At 10:24 26-06-2003 +0200, Pannwitz, Michael M wrote: which rule of os did ho break, cleverly?
Thank you very much for your question. This is only one opinion and HO will correct me if he wants to - or any one of you, for that matter. I don't know exactly what was planned for the last day of the event in Rome. But I assume that it was normal OST stuff. One could expect the facilitator to "not be interested in content", "letting go", and saying to himself "whatever happens..." and indeed taking a nap in the previous evening and then reconvene the session in the last day in a normal way. But then, we notice that this (very special) facilitator they got (after the one he recommended could not come - but I am sure it would be different but also brilliant), we notice that the facilitator in the evening of the second day was very concerned with content and in the morning of the last day he did a completely surprising (and NOT-on-the-book) thing: he intervened about content. Avner commented at the time, and I agree, that this was a touch of genius. (Genius is one word we use if there are two conditions: (1) someone broke the rules - written by others or by himself - and (2) it worked well. If condition (2) is not true, we call the same attitude silly...) Let me quote his words - that are no longer in the archives of the OSLIST but here http://www.openspaceworld.com/new_page_4.htm By late afternoon, I found myself sitting on a bank of steps in front of the villa between two large groups in heated debate. I could hear some of the words, but didnt need to listen in order to catch the tones of anger, despair, fear, frustration all came rolling towards me like a heavy surf acid discontent and pain. It was deep and it went deeper. And later That night, after a meal I would hardly touch, I went to my room, which was located (...) If I slept that night, I cant remember. I do not know what the others felt as they wrestled with the night, but I knew waves of fear and anger, fear and desperation. And still later (next morning): The night ended and the dawn broke, and once again we were sitting in a circle. 50 Palestinians and Israelis, on our final day together. I opened the circle with a few words. Exactly what they were, I cant remember but something like... We have known some hope and light together. We have entered into the darkness. This is a day of choosing. I propose that we take the next hour to be with our selves and/or talk with our friends. In one hour, I will ring the bells. Those who wish to return to our circle, please do so. So, my opinion is that ho broke the rules (at least the ones of the version of the OST User's Guide I red). And I am glad he did it. First, because it worked. Second, because maybe we can learn some important lessons from observing the artist in real life and in "fly". Polanyi once wrote (defining tacit knowledge) that "we know more that we can say". On myself and on the others I use to compare what one says and what one does (how one walks the talk). And I always think that what one does is more important then what one says he does. Sometimes the two things are completely different - even opposite. In some others, like in the case of ho, the doing just slightly clarifies (and slightly transforms) the saying. That is only one humble opinion, of course. What do the others think? Regards from the extreme West of Europe Artur . * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
