Just watching a wonderful video that addresses at some level what you are pointing to, I believe. Richard Barrett - a Values Based Nation talk . http:/livestre.am/4n9fV Eager to further a conversation on this talk. Thanks Marie Ann Skye
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Marie Ann Östlund < [email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps, David! And that's what I was suggesting in my first post. I do > think we all are spirit and that spirit itself is loving - and spirit is > within bees too! Or we can call spirit life, or life-force. > > But before I continue, I want to thank everyone that have engaged with > this question and apologise for not having responded to or continued to > engage with it. I needed to withdraw. I will go over your responses and > texts again to see where I am with it. Life also got too busy. > > Following on - either we think life creates 'life' in the sense of > perceived consciousness, and we perceive consciousness in all that is > alive. Or we think consciousness is a product of matter, a product of all > the complicated synapses that occur in the bodies of living beings. There > might be more ways to understand this, of course, but this is what I > understand. > > However, it doesn't matter (to me) if we believe matter comes from spirit, > or that spirit comes from matter - what matters (to me) is that many > institutions (systems) are built upon the idea that we're selfish, > egoistical beings. > > One of the foundational stories about human beings in our western culture > is that humans are evil/sinful or simply selfish and greedy. The driving > force has been selfishness in some form or other, whether we believe it > should be curbed or encouraged (as the motor for evolution). But I think > research is increasingly showing that nature is driven by adaptation to our > environment and cooperation. And I believe that that is what OST shows us > too. > > What I have tried to say is that OST is an experience where participants > can experience themselves and others as constructive and even loving beings > - in contrast to the story that we're fundamentally/essentially selfish. > > I was also suggesting that what makes self-organization work well is that > OST asks us to take responsibility for what we love, or are passionate > about/find important. We're called to step forward as we are. If we're > called to step forward as we are in OST, OST might also gives us a hint of > who we are. > > OST also creates the context for a better, more efficient (15000 times > more?) self-organization. Why is that? Because we create a bubble/framework > where all the selves in the organization are participating and allowed to > contribute. Otherwise, a few tries to organize the many. And that process > is a process of self-organization, as we push and pull against each other, > but is not as efficient or satisfying as when we are allowed to do so in > person and with the whole system present. What do we see - that selves are > amazingly able to organize themselves given a supportive and safe > framework. We're not only called to step forward, but we can leave when > we're not comfortable/happy/comfortable. We're not given the space to > control others, and others are not given the space to control us. The Law > of mobility/two feet gives us the safety and freedom we need and might not > have otherwise. That's why I pointed to the law as an organizing principle. > > To end, a comment about non-action (I haven't had time to read the thread > about meditation but only comment what came up in our threads): to do > nothing doesn't mean to do nothing. :) We all act, as breathing is an act. > What is interesting to me is detached action, and for me that means > detached ACTION. :) And mediation is certainly a great way to come to that > state of mind. Acting without personal agenda, in true love, is another way > - and both ways are complementary to each other and certainly not mutually > exclusive. "One who sees action in inaction, and inaction in action, is > certainly wise." Bhagavad-gita 4.18. (to quote the great :) A worthy goal. > > Thank you David for your answer. I will think more about all the > contributions in the threads and might continue the dance. :) > > All the best, > > Marie Ann > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:36 AM, David Osborne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Marie Ann, >> >> I'm delayed in responding and I hope you still find my thoughts >> helpful. You ask whether self-organization might work because of intrinsic >> factors within us all as humans like the desire to help others, be >> constructive etc. If this is the case the same force is in all of nature >> because the bees do it , all of nature does it. Yes it may be intrinsic and >> it's not exclusive to humans. >> >> Perhaps it's the power of Love !!! >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Marie Ann Östlund < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> David, thank you for this. It's a helpful perspective. >>> >>> I'm a slow thinker (not in Kahneman's sense - just slow) so will need to >>> meditate on this some more. If I understand you rightly, self-organization >>> is like a natural law (like gravity) but that it's also based on agents >>> making choices. That in turn create patterns. Self-organization under right >>> circumstances can produce powerful change, or emergent change (and I >>> understand this to be desirable or constructive change). OST creates >>> optimal circumstances for emergent change. >>> >>> Can it not be that self-organization happens because we are >>> fundamentally constructive, helpful beings. The magic, or the natural law >>> bit, is not extrinsic (external) to us but instrinsic (natural or >>> essential) to us, and is what happens when we are in relation to someone >>> else (or others) that share a similar passion/belief/vision etc. Anyway, >>> just thinking aloud. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Marie Ann >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, David Osborne < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Marie Ann, >>>> >>>> I loved reading your message and thoughts on Open Space and >>>> Self_Organization. A topic I love and I believe quite paradoxical to >>>> explain. I agree with all you've shared and have another view as well. >>>> Self-Organizing is like a multi-faceted diamond that can be viewed from >>>> multiple perspectives. All I am about to write I have learned from >>>> Harrison. >>>> >>>> Self-Organizing is nothing more than individual agents (in this case >>>> humans) making choices that....when culminated together forms a pattern or >>>> the way things are. The phenomena is scalable so it can happen in a family, >>>> team, group, organization, country, club, world etc. I have a few core >>>> beliefs about self-organization. >>>> - It is a law just like the law of gravity >>>> - It is operating all the time, just like gravity it is invisible to >>>> us....we may like the pattern or not...patterns tend to be >>>> self-reinforcing....think of a time things seem stuck >>>> - It can produce powerful change under the right conditions....I call >>>> this emergent change....Open Space set the conditions for this type of >>>> emergent change which I will share more about below >>>> >>>> Harrison in his book *The Practice of Peace* outlines how Open Space >>>> replicates the conditions of Self- Organization flowing from complexity >>>> Science as identified in Stuart Kauffmans book *At Home in The >>>> Universe. *I would argue that Kauffman really identified just one >>>> pattern of self-organizaiton that leads to emergent change. When we >>>> understand the conditions we can do many, many things to build the >>>> conditions to support emergent change beyond pure open space. The >>>> conditions include: >>>> >>>> - A safe nutrient environment >>>> - A high level of diversity >>>> - Sparse prior connections between the diverse elements >>>> - A drive for improvement.....or fitness with the environment >>>> - Being on the edge of chaos >>>> >>>> Here is how Open Space creates these conditions. >>>> >>>> A safe nutrient environment: >>>> - This starts with the invitation...and individual choice to >>>> participate....this makes it safe >>>> - Sitting in a circle, puts everyone at an equal level...minimizing >>>> power and hierarchy differences....again making it more safe >>>> - The law of two feet supports safety >>>> - Positive Intention. The framing of the invitation as something >>>> everyone wants to achieve creates a shared goal that also builds safety. I >>>> suspect Harrison's hours of meditating in advance deepens and purifies the >>>> intention in some manner that contributes to the safety. >>>> - The safety ultimately makes it safe for people to bring, foster and >>>> pursue their passion....it is the energy that makes it all work >>>> >>>> A high level of diversity: Sameness breeds sameness. IT is the mixing >>>> of diverse idea's that increases the potential for new emergent options >>>> - The diverse group of participants an OS invitation draws >>>> >>>> Sparse Prior Connections >>>> - This is created by the diverse group of participants >>>> - The circle, bulletin board process, law of two feet all support new >>>> and different connections >>>> >>>> Drive for Improvement >>>> - The reason for holding an OS in the first place >>>> >>>> Being on the Edge of Chaos (Two levels of this) >>>> - Sitting on the edge of the circle not knowing what's going to unfold >>>> in the OS is the edge of chaos >>>> - What ever issue the organization or group is facing that is creating >>>> the need for change. The greater the urgency for change the closer to teh >>>> edge of chaos. >>>> >>>> So if I summarize OS supports the conditions for self-organization to >>>> lead to emergent change because: >>>> >>>> The situation is ready for it: There is some need for change (edge of >>>> chaos) and there is a desire to change (drive for improvement) >>>> The elements are present to create it: Diverse views connected in new >>>> ways. >>>> Safety is created to let it happen: This takes relinquishing control >>>> and letting what will naturally emerge to emerge >>>> >>>> As I said earlier....if the goal is for change or something new to >>>> emerge OS creates the conditions for this AND there are lot's of things we >>>> can do to open space for change beyond pure open space. >>>> >>>> I hope this is a helpful perspective. >>>> >>>> David >>>> 703-939-1777 >>>> [email protected] >>>> [image: Inline image 1] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Marie Ann Östlund < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the >>>>> opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year. >>>>> >>>>> I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or >>>>> holding the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the concept >>>>> and the way we've talked about it. But this autumn the penny dropped (!) >>>>> for me (to some extent) and I could also understand why I make the >>>>> connections I do with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why others don't >>>>> make that same connection. >>>>> >>>>> I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand >>>>> this, and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning - >>>>> it's >>>>> a bit long. >>>>> >>>>> Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that >>>>> exemplified some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave me >>>>> the >>>>> perfect cue to put my thoughts together (Thank you!): >>>>> >>>>> "And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that >>>>> these folks (whoever they are...) are already "in" Open Space. They are >>>>> just doing it badly. Your "offer" is simply to help them to do what they >>>>> are already doing - but now with some understanding, expertise, and style. >>>>> Short take: you can help them to remember what they already know, and >>>>> having remembered, to do everything much better." >>>>> >>>>> I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are >>>>> already "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly. >>>>> >>>>> If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger >>>>> "organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars, >>>>> peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families, >>>>> teams, >>>>> etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization. Some are to >>>>> our liking, some are not. >>>>> >>>>> Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful >>>>> and some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the self-organization >>>>> done "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST *work*, as we >>>>> sometimes put it? >>>>> >>>>> The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences >>>>> lies in the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In >>>>> simpler or smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer than in >>>>> larger ones (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the macro level, >>>>> countries organize themselves based on certain principles - like one of >>>>> the >>>>> foundational principles of the US is the freedom to *be* religious >>>>> and freedom *from* the state (from Britain and its monarchy), while >>>>> in France freedom *from* religion is foundational and influence what >>>>> citizens are allowed to learn and wear in school or say in the public >>>>> sphere, and in Sweden the state (or previously the monarchy) have >>>>> historically been the guarantor and protector of individual freedom >>>>> (against the aristocracy). An even greater and deeper organizing principle >>>>> we've adopted in the western hemisphere is the idea of progress - that our >>>>> societies invariably progress through scientific and technological >>>>> advances. And yes, all these ideas, although found articulated by some >>>>> powerful philosophers, are in a sense a product of self-organization. >>>>> However interesting the ideas, they would go nowhere if people didn't >>>>> accept/adopt/spread them or felt they resonated with their own ideas and >>>>> experiences. The way ideas evolve and spread are certainly complex. >>>>> >>>>> I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the >>>>> complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and organise >>>>> our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one may call >>>>> them >>>>> organizing principles. A company can have organizing principle/s - there >>>>> are differences between how General Motors and Apple are organized and >>>>> what >>>>> define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A family also have organizing >>>>> principles (who's the boss, how decisions are made etc). >>>>> >>>>> What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing >>>>> principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two >>>>> feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European Learning >>>>> Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to some extent - >>>>> sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law and market place, >>>>> off you go, evening and morning updates, closing circle etc. If it's Open >>>>> Space, why keep to these rules as we often come back to doing OST in a >>>>> certain way. Why do we (religiously) adhere to a certain format when doing >>>>> OST - at least this is how I interpret the query hearing about it second >>>>> hand. >>>>> >>>>> However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's >>>>> done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows >>>>> self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we create >>>>> a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it. The >>>>> principles >>>>> help us free our minds enough to be present with what's happening (and >>>>> most >>>>> importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the organising principle - >>>>> follow your heart (and use your feet to do so). Take responsibility for >>>>> what you love. >>>>> >>>>> What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel >>>>> alive, we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at what >>>>> is >>>>> created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken to another >>>>> level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we create when we >>>>> come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We love and feel >>>>> loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad' feelings in OS or >>>>> don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me) that's often to do with >>>>> us not following our hearts as fully as we would like to or we're in the >>>>> messy chaotic part in our organizing process. >>>>> >>>>> So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being. >>>>> It says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love >>>>> contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than us, >>>>> and >>>>> we thrive when we're connected. >>>>> >>>>> My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take >>>>> responsibility for what you love) is an organising principle that is >>>>> closer >>>>> to our human nature than many other organizing-principles. That's why it >>>>> *works*. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent, and selfish >>>>> as Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the basic organizing >>>>> principles in international relations (more or less). One of the reasons >>>>> some systems work better is that the organising principles are more >>>>> fitting >>>>> to our needs and natures. And some may have worked for some time but no >>>>> longer does, as they have grown too rigid or not kept up with >>>>> time/development. They might have helped us from a worse condition, but >>>>> not >>>>> fully hit home. >>>>> >>>>> To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as >>>>> facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble is >>>>> created within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use rituals to >>>>> communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in a different >>>>> way >>>>> than others. We show physically that we're doing something else here than >>>>> in other systems, by sitting in a circle, going around it, etc. Rituals >>>>> are >>>>> powerful. If all system would use the same organizing principle these >>>>> rituals might no longer matter, or they would adopt the same. >>>>> >>>>> To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some >>>>> principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation that >>>>> works better than most as its organising principle is closer to human >>>>> nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human nature isn't >>>>> done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning. Sorry :) >>>>> >>>>> But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image >>>>> of dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can >>>>> also look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with the >>>>> soul (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic >>>>> perspective is also the personal or individual view point, of what the >>>>> dance can be that we create together in love and in relationship to each >>>>> other. And that might tell a different story about who we are. >>>>> >>>>> I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what >>>>> makes sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you. >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Marie Ann >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OSList mailing list >>>>> To post send emails to [email protected] >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> David Osborne >>>> >>>> www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSList mailing list >>>> To post send emails to [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSList mailing list >>> To post send emails to [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> David Osborne >> >> www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSList mailing list >> To post send emails to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > -- *Skye Hirst, PhD* President - The Autognomics Institute *Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself* www.autognomics.org @autognomics New Phone Number: 207-593-8074
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
