Thank you Harrison. The vital part of the process is that we are part of it! Just as Darwin encouraged us to look at the origin of species in a different way (Newtonian physics) so does Richard Dawkins "The selfish gene" first in its original form then in Dawkins' explanation in the past few years of "selfish" - the difference between domination and being successful in one's self.(almost quantum physics)
I believe Dawkins' recent work tells us a lot about how systems work. Remembering that history is almost always told by the victors or "successful" survivors. Dawkins' work also provides one view into the role of the facilitator and the perturbance of the current order that allows a different form of the organisms in the system to thrive. I can but encourage a closer look at the natural system, as we are a part of it despite the fact that many believe that they are not because humankind has moved beyond....... I don't think so! I also suggest that we can look at the succession of success for the perspective of the unsuccessful (at the time) and reflect on how the intellectual capital can so easily be lost ( e.g. The indigenous peoples of the Americas). Also how fragile systems can be especially when Humankind wilfully exploits the system beyond its capacity to renew or sustain itself. ( fossil fuels, the passenger pigeon............) Yes I look forward to the results of the research. Regards Rob > On 1 Dec 2014, at 4:41 am, Harrison Owen via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > > Kari – I totally agree with your congratulatory note to Dan for having > introduced ecology to our discussion. Thinking about self organization in the > abstract gets pretty fuzzy, and limiting the conversation to OST is > ...limiting. But seen in a broader context (the biosphere), things become > quite juicy and exciting, I think. For example, it has often occurred to me > that you could look at “The Origin of the Species” as an early treatise on > self organization. It is quite unlikely that Darwin would have recognized the > terms (self organization), but the story he tells is a rich description of > the natural self organizing world. To be sure there are some holes in his > description, leading to no small amount of debate in the years following > publication, but the basic story line is pretty clear to me – given a rich > diversity stressed internally and externally by environmental forces, > wonderful things emerge. And there wasn’t an executive committee in sight! > > If this story happens to be a remotely accurate description of the natural > world of living creatures, I find it very hard to understand how it could be > that creatures lately arrived, namely us, could be excluded. The notion that > all human systems are essentially self organizing, therefore is not a strange > one. What would be strange is the suggestion that we had somehow escaped what > is apparently a fundamental rule of the Biosphere. Your comment ... “I see > that there is selfe-organization at work all the time” therefore is not only > spot on – it is actually a blinding flash of the obvious. Well done! > > I joke, but with serious intent. When doing our research it is most important > not only to understand what we are looking at (re-searching), but also and > equally importantly, how we see it. The object of our affection would seem to > be organizations, particularly human ones. But how do we view them? I think > it fair to say that the “standard” view point considers organizations to be > creatures of our making. We designed, control, and run them. Full stop. That > there may be an additional phenomenon called “self organization” is admitted > as a possible, but never to be confused with the reality of organization in > the human sphere. > > An alternative view sees human systems as a (minor) subset of all natural > systems, possessing certain distinguishing characteristics for sure, but > never the less woven out of the same cloth and sharing all the fundamental > features, including self organization. > > Doubtless what I have said above seems some less than revolutionary and no > more than you might have expected from me. Some might even accuse me of being > rather a broken record, if you are old enough to remember such things (broken > records). But my purpose in repeating myself is to starkly contrast the two > viewpoints – which constitute (I think) totally different paradigms. And if > Thomas Kuhn is correct in his analysis, the distance between two paradigms is > enormous to the point that what makes sense in one paradigm is understood to > be totally crazy in the other. One immediate impact of all this is that > mutual understanding between those holding one paradigm or the other is > minimal, to say the least. > > The classic case, or course are the paradigms represented by Newtonian > Physics and Quantum Mechanics. For those anchored in the Newtonian world > (which would be most of us)—the world of the Quantum is weird, crazy, > impossible ... Nuts. And communication between those enthralled by one > paradigm and the others is challenging at best and may be downright > impossible. There are multiple reasons, but one is that each paradigm has > its own unique logic derived from the unique “first principles” of the > respective paradigms. The Newtonian world is orderly and predictable. The > Quantum world is random and indeterminate. One could say, “Different strokes > for different folks,” and the bridges across the divide are difficult to find. > > The connections with the “conversation” between Newton and the Quantum > theorists and our adventure are more than a simple analogue, I think... but > all that would be the subject of a much longer essay. However, I think the > lessons regarding the pains and perils of paradigm hopping are very apropos. > It ain’t easy. I occurs to me that the fact that the academic community has > generally (totally?) avoided Open Space Technology may well be a good example > of the problem. With the standard paradigm installed as the dominant view in > Academe, OST is crazy and makes no sense. And crazy nonsense is best ignored. > > So on with our re-search! And I think it will be critical to the venture to > constantly remind ourselves what we are looking at, and how we see. It will > be fun. > > Harrison > > Winter Address > 7808 River Falls Drive > Potomac, MD 20854 > 301-365-2093 > > Summer Address > 189 Beaucaire Ave. > Camden, ME 04843 > 207-763-3261 > > Websites > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com > OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > OSLIST Go > to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of > Kári Gunnarsson via OSList > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 11:52 AM > To: Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Summer research project idea: 'self organisation' > > This is a good idea Daniel > > To use material from ecology. I like it. I even went online to search for > some Journal articles that talk about the different cultural aspect with > intervention programs. There is a Critical Review on two grand intervention > by Blaikie and Muldavin (2014) one in the eastern Himalayas and the other > across the border in eastern India. > > As I was reading this, I see that there is selfe-organization at work all the > time. At one instance the work happened in harmony and flexibility with the > imposed system and in the other instance the self-organization happened > despite the system ridged closed and toxic structure and undermined its > interventions objectives. > > Blaikie P and Muldavin J (2014). Environmental justice? The story of two > projects. Geoforum 54. 226–229. > (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718512002850). > > > > > On 28 November 2014 at 12:20, Daniel Mezick via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > There are many well-established words that are used to more precisely discuss > self "organization" in the biological and social sciences. I wonder if > actively using some of these well-defined words might be helpful in the > discussion. > > Example: stigmergy > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+stigmergy > Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions. > The principle is that the trace left in the environment by an action > stimulates the performance of a next action, by the same or a different agent. > > More details > http://www.evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/Stigmergy.html > http://www.evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/StigmergyAndSelf.html > http://www.evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/FourPrinciples.html > http://www.evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/IntertwinedPrinciples.html > > Daniel > > > > On 11/26/14 8:25 PM, John Baxter via OSList wrote: > Hello facilitators of self organisation > > Let's take a moment to consider self organisation, as 'field' or 'practice'. > > I am scoping a summer project at the moment (in the southern hemisphere!). > > I have been reading and learning all I can about self org. There is less > than I expected at the heart of self org practice, but much more than I > realised in intersecting fields (e.g. in governance, democracy, community > organising, management, change, systems...). There are also unanswered Qs > about what 'self org' is (indeed, if it is anything at all). > > It might be worthwhile formalising this, through a focused research project, > and sharing the results in a report or the like. > > Possible focus questions that come to mind for me are > - what does someone need to know to say "I do self organisation"? > - what would someone need to know to be an 'expert' in self org? > > Would appreciate your perspective, as a practitioner-facilitator-fellow wave > rider: > > What (if anything) do you think deserves to be done? > Who should be involved in doing it? > > Thank you for contributing to the quest! > > John Baxter > Cocreation Consultant & CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator > jsbaxter.com.au | CoCreateADL.com > 0405 447 829 > | > @jsbaxter_ > > Thank you to everyone who came, helped or spread the good word about City > Grill > > ! > Summary and links: cocreateadl.com/localgov/grill-summary/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > -- > Daniel Mezick, President > > New Technology Solutions Inc. > > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > > Bio. Blog. Twitter. > > Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. > > Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. > > Explore the Agile Boston Community. > > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > > > -- > Kári Gunnarsson markþjálfi > kari.gunnars...@simnet.is > https://www.facebook.com/heimsmynd > (+354) 864 5189 > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org > 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 OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
