Hi,
It seems to me that we have to be a little careful in our acceptance of
what happened being the only thing that could have happened. It is true and
extremely useful in enabling us to let go of control once we are in the
thick of things. On the other hand it should never prevent us from
wondering how we got to now. Given the people involved, given the context,
given the preparation, given the whole bunch of stuff what happened IS the
only thing that could have happened.
We learn from our mistakes and the from the mistakes of others. Thank God,
I'd hate to have to make them all myself. Hence the learning that comes
from the OSlist which give access to the mistakes and the successes of
others. Up to the moment I act,I have choice and I an apply my learning.
Once I act,.... too late.........what happened is the only thing
that.......given my thinking up to that moment.
Acceptance is about what has already happened, learning is about what has
yet to happen.
Shay
At 10:01 11/09/2003, you wrote:
Hi
Thanks for this story - I found it very interesting. It made me think of
a dilemma that I'm currently working on, namely how to relate acceptance
of what happens to learning from what happened.
On the one hand we need to accept (or indeed to go one step further and
appreciate) whatever happens. On the other hand we need to learn from
what happens - wether it worked or not. To me, this means that I must be
open to the possibility that maybe what happened was not the best
possible result. I must ask the question "Could it have gone better?"
Of course in many cases it's difficult to know with any certainty what
is better, but even though it is difficult you must still try.
So my question to you is: How do you reconcile an acceptance (or
appreciation) of what happened with an awareness of even better
potential outcomes, in order to learn?
Cheers
Alexander
Ted Ernst wrote:
Some of you may have read my earlier emails about the Chicago Social Forum
process. I facilatated a 4-person OST event for the Aug planning meeting
where it was decided to do it again for the Sept meeting, where the first
part would be a suggestion for conversations on the theme Local/Global and
the 2nd part would be a suggestion for "business type" organizing for the
"event" on Jan 31-Feb 1 (the Chicago Social Forum is both a process and an
event, I suppose).
Anyway, last night was that Sept meeting and while the process worked
perfectly as always, and what happened was the only thing that could have, I
was left thinking "these people just aren't ready for this type of
self-responsibility." Harrison pointed out a couple of months back that
he'd take battle hardened marines over the peace, love and light crowd any
time if choosing a group that thrives in open space. I can't remember his
reasoning, but last night I had to do a heck of a lot of internal work to
just let it all happen.
The first session went off pretty well (a couple of people wanted to change
the process, but we worked through that) with abot 5 conversations among
about 14 people, ranging from the FTAA actions to Africa to Food Security to
Housing and more. Good stuff and people seemed to like it. I felt
something strange when people were getting ready to change sessions I went
to the washroom (not wanting to influence people's actions by my presence).
When I came back I found everyone in a circle dispite the 5 or 6 distinct
topics on the wall. Everyone merged themselves into the "Program
Committee." This kind of large group (facilitated) discussion always seems
like such a waste of time to me as I'm not interested in many of the issues
discussed, but I don't want to impose my agenda on the whole group so my
stuff doesn't get discussed. Anyway, I took a seat outside the circle
(there wasn't space in the circle and I didn't want to push my way in,
didn't feel right as the facilitator at that moment) and listened (I
expressed a substantive opinion at one point, but nothing about process).
One topic that came up was the format for future organizing meetings. Some
people said point blank they'd like a traditional format while others liked
the idea of open space for the 1st session as a way to have conversations
that might not otherwise take place, but having the large group 2nd part was
universally accepted. One person opinioned that union leaders or clergy
that have little time to go to more meetings would likely not come back to a
process using something so strange as the open space format.
My assessment: They don't get it. Is this the only thing that could've
happened? Yes. Given that these are were the right people, this is the
only way the meeting could've gone. If these were not the right people,
what's the point in even having the meeting or discussing what happened as
the point is moot. I'm convinced these were/are the right people and
they're not ready to trust themselves nor take responsibility for creating
something truly unprecedented. I'm happy we tried it no matter what, but if
anything comes out of last night, I hope it's that people now feel the
tension between what they're trying to create and the ways in which they're
used to working. If they don't so be it, but if they do, maybe they'll be
ready for more open space at another time.
Peace,
Ted
Humanize the Earth! http://www.chicagohumanist.org
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Chris Corrigan
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
I have been working hard over the past few years to let go of
what might be and just focus on what is. To say that there
are "right" conditions and "wrong" conditions, especially as
regards to the future is, as you point out, not a very useful
exercise.
Accepting the now is basically all we can do. To argue with
reality is insanity! But it's never easy to get a clear
picture of what "now" is. We have to see past the stories we
generate in our heads or in our relationships to get at the
underlying "now-ness" of the present moment.
Of course I can believe that we can influence our futures,
but I stop short about saying how. Yesterday's "initial
conditions" have led us to where we are today. And today's
"action" is tomorrow's "initial conditions." Given the
intellectual yoga required to grasp all this, perhaps the
best thing to do is just DO. And of course we will all have
our own ideas about doing what, but I think most people try
to act out of goodness or positive intention. Throwing
people into Open Space to explore options for doing just
increases each person's exposure to alternatives, leading to
a richer field of action.
So, as usual, I have outlined a roundabout way of agreeing
with you, Marei.
Chris
---
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Bowen Island, BC, Canada
http://www.chriscorrigan.com
[email protected]
(604) 947-9236
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Marei
Kiele
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
Dear Chris, dear Arthur,
it has been very interesting for me to think about the question and
the
answer given. During the last days I tried to clarify for
myself the
difference between accepting and
not-doing-anything-anymore. For me it
has
to do with the time I am referring to.
I agree that whatever happens under the present conditions
is whatever
could have and that there is no use in thinking about "ifs" and
"shoulds".
And maybe the conditions are not only right but neither right nor
wrong -
they just are. This is true esp. when thinking about the now or the
past.
But thinking about the future I can ask which conditions are
supportive
and which are not: which make change, development,
transformation more
possible than others? If one of the things necessary for
differenciation (as I agree with)
is a
nutritious environment - than we can influence the
possibilities for
transformation by sharing nutrition (physically or in other
dimensions).
And referring to "wrong" conditions in organisations, the world, our
heads: Maybe they seem not to be helpful or not fitting anymore or
born
out of anxiousness. But at least they were the "right"
conditions at
another time or place. And in the moment being they are
still "right"
for
the organisation or the person and we - judging them - just
don't have
all
the insights...
What I decided to try doing is both: totally accept the past and the
now -
but do my share to influence the future (and accept whatever is
coming).
Does that make sense to you?
Marei
"Chris Corrigan" <[email protected]> schrieb:
Whatever conditions are present are the right conditions for
whatever
happens is the only thing that could have happened.
Seriously.
I think the second principle refers to the fact that no
matter what
initial conditions are present, whatever happens is the only thing
that
could have. It sounds like a tautology, but I think of
it more as a
Zen
koan. It is supposed to bring your consciousness to a place that
accepts the fact that "should" is an extremely useless
word when we
are
dealing with an expanded now.
As for the conditions that make Open Space really hum, I
go back to
Harrison's elegantly stated four: passion, diversity,
complexity and
urgency. The more of each, the better the process works.
And that, for many facilitators and managers, is another paradox.
Chris
---
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Bowen Island, BC, Canada
http://www.chriscorrigan.com
[email protected]
(604) 947-9236
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of
Artur
Ferreira da Silva
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
Hello again:
For someone like myself that has problems with the capitalized
word
Spirit (as well as with some other capitalized words) and with the
wording of
the "principle" that says "whatever happens is the only thing that
could
have" I felt very surprised as I completely agree with this
formulation
(from Alan's, "The Conversing Company"):
"... When people interact under the right conditions, spirit or
intelligence emerges automatically - it is the only thing that
could
have".
The way I see the "right conditions" to be present, or not, are
the
following:
- In "normal organizations", using current meeting
methodologies,
the
wrong conditions are normally present - they are
"closed" by rules
and
regulations, both explicit and tacit.
- In our outside macro-world the wrong conditions are normally
present
(see the Middle East or Iraq - before and now - to give only two
examples -
maybe three).
- Inside our heads the wrong conditions are normally
present - as
obsolete "mental models".
For the space to be open it is necessary that someone
opens it AND
that the "right conditions" are defined/clarified in the first
place.
Those
right conditions are not only the OST principles and law but also:
the
correct preparation, the fact that all stakeholders with enough
diversity are
invited (but not obliged, directly or indirectly) to
participate,
a
right and open theme is addressed, etc.
I would very much like to see what others think that are the
"right
conditions" for "whatever happens is the only thing that could
happen"
to be true.
Regards
Artur
*
*
==========================================================
[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
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected],
Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
--
Alexander Kjerulf
www.kjerulf.com
[email protected]
Tagensvej 126, lejl. 102
2200 København N.
+45 2688 2373
Trænger du til noget arbejdsglæde? Kender du nogen som gør?
www.projektarbejdsglaede.dk
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected],
Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
Crossroads Facilitation
50 Carrigdhoun, Waterpark, Carrigaline, Co. Cork
www.crossroadsfacilitation.ie
"Building bridges and getting you over them"
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected],
Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
