Rich thoughts Harold! You write so well late at night! And always! This discussion reminds me of the Triz facilitation technique - documented well at Liberating Structures!
Also, I have a friend who helps small groups of folks she facilitates to understand each other's perceptions of time by asking them some questions: Where is now? Where is 5 minutes from now? An hour? A week? A month ? A year? Where is yesterday? (Continuities with similar questions about past?) as she asks each question, to each individual one at a time, the respondent points to a location. Everybody has different perceptual positions . One can notice cultural patterns - and also patterns based on ones profession (a project planner's year from Now might be right in front of them, but a teacher starting the school year who'll have it off in the distance.) some have the past in front of them and the future behind them (hasn't happened yet). It's quite a fascinating texhnique! Sad I missed Tuesday's call - glad that I was instead opening an intergenerational space with a very long time elderly family friend... :-) Choices! Best, Andrea > On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Harold Shinsato via OSList > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lucas, thanks for adding some of your thinking here. I was intrigued by > something you said at the Qiqochat supported online Open Space experience we > had on the OSHotline this past Tuesday. It seemed to relate to what started > happening soon afterwards on the OSList. > > About "creating" or "opening" space - I do believe these are useful and > powerful metaphors. But in terms of some of the cosmology thinking - I'm > remembering what my college professor at my first Physics class said. > > We don't really know what time is beyond time is what we measure with clocks. > We don't know what distance (space) is beyond it is what we measure with > rulers. > > I opened that class's text book, and couldn't find it, but I found the time > definition with a quick internet search. It is attributed to Einstein, and > other text books do consider it an operational definition of time. It seems > fit well with Harrison's notions that we don't really understand time or > space. > > Even given our not really knowing - we still measure it. Play with it. Live > in it. And one huge transformation from Prigogene which has been discussed on > the OSList before - was an insight from the life sciences that essentially > overthrew the principles of Entropy that caused the character played by Woody > Allen in Annie Hall to get really depressed as a boy that the ultimate end of > the universe was complete dissolution. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU > > "Why are you depressed, Alvy?" > "The universe is expanding... Well, the universe is everything, and if it's > expanding, someday it will break apart, and that will be the end of > everything." > > The problem with the principles of Thermodynamics that Entropy (i.e. > disorder) always increases, is that these principles came from the study of > closed systems. If the Universe is truly a closed system, our old physics > required a rather dismal cosmology. > > Maybe trying to nail down the ultimate truth about the Universe into a > formula or equation is a bad idea anyway, but the Universe *AS I SEE IT* will > certainly decay and dissolve to death. And I'll have to grieve that > understanding. Because my understanding most certainly is FINITE at any > point in space/time. But all I have to do is let go, and I can open up some > space in my understanding. And maybe at that point - I'll break open into a > new understanding. One that is bigger and greater than the previous one. New > Space! at least for me. And if it creates space for me, perhaps I can invite > someone else into this new space as well. Or maybe we can walk into it > together, after properly grieving our past understanding - may it rest in > peace. > > To me - how this relates to your insight if you create space for X - you are > creating space against Y: perhaps there's something valuable to that. Because > often there really is a clearing away necessary in order to "open" space. > When I go to an OST event, I most certainly am choosing to clear my calendar > to accept that invitation. Yet - if anything - I've always found my world > expanded after attending an Open Space. Always! And perhaps that is simply > because my Understanding grew - and therefore - voila - more space at least > in my own head. > > And about your final sentence in bold, although there's some truth in your > win/lose perspective - perhaps if you viewed things from a different > perspective - the perspective that could take in the whole system - you would > see that the pie grows enough for everyone to ultimately win - if they accept > the invitation into this bigger pie. And that bigger pie is the growth of our > collective understanding and comprehension of this infinite mystery. > > Cheers, > Harold > > >> On 9/2/15 7:47 AM, Lucas Cioffi via OSList wrote: >> That's an interesting thread you started, Daniel, about inviting >> non-invitation. >> >> Harrison writes yesterday: >>> Here’s a thought... Space/time is infinite, defined by our minds, and >>> limited by our imagination. So “constraints” are only what you make them >>> out to be. AND... it is always nice to have as much “space/time” as >>> possible. A “genuine invitation” creates a LOT of space/time. >>> >> >> Do y'all think we are creating space or are we opening space? It's an >> important distinction, because creating implies a win-win but opening could >> be a win-lose situation. I'd say none of us is ever creating space, just >> opening it, and that someone or something is always losing something else >> when we do. >> >> I'll do my best to explain... >> Instead of "creating space" I'd argue that instead we are "creating space >> for" because the space literally already exists. We are creating >> opportunity for voices to be heard and for people to participate. But in >> some indirect way a space for X is at least indirectly a space against Y. >> We are never actually creating new space, instead we are creating "new space >> for" by marking that space with an invitation/purpose, principles, and a law >> of two feet. The space (the hotel conference room, the warehouse, etc) >> already exists. >> >> I don't disagree, Harrison, that overall space/time might be infinite–I >> don't know :) –but each of us is limited to being in one physical space at a >> time, monitoring/interacting with a handful of physical spaces virtually, >> and having 24 hours in a day. In that way we'd all agree that space and >> time are nearly zero sum at a personal scale, so when we open/create space >> for _________, and people accept the invitation, we are decreasing energy >> and time spent some where else. There is a cost. We don't talk about that, >> but I don't think we forget that either. >> >> So, to take this argument full circle (pun intended), I'd say that whenever >> we open space, we do it by force. Space doesn't open on its own (or does >> it?!-- what if we aren't really opening space and the space is already open, >> that we're just the first to see it?). Well, even if space opens on its own >> and then if we're the first ones to walk into it and invite others, we are >> still inviting by force–this not a bad force or a coercive force, but it's a >> force nonetheless. We know this, because we know how it requires force to >> launch an invitation into the world. (Or is this not always the case? Can >> someone invite by simply being?) >> >> Any invitation displaces people's time: to read it (maybe just 30 seconds) >> and then much more time is displaced for people choose to attend (an hour, a >> day, etc). What I'm trying to say is that I'm beginning to see >> opening space more and more as active, forceful (in a good way), and >> intentional. When we open space that was previously closed, we are using >> force, and that might mean that someone else is experiencing something else >> closing (the old order of business in an organization or fewer people >> attending another event or doing something that they would have otherwise >> been doing if they weren't attending). >> >> Bottom line: It's hard to argue with creating space because it looks like a >> win-win, but somewhere someone or something is losing our time, energy, and >> support in the short term. In the case of an organization the person losing >> is the boss who wants to keep the old order of things. When that situation >> isn't applicable, we're at least spending time away from other things we >> could be doing such as tending to a vegetable garden or taking Fido for a >> walk. So it's always important to keep in mind who/what is losing when we >> open space, and perhaps using the phrase "creating space" is a good way to >> focus on the upside. > > -- > Harold Shinsato > [email protected] > http://shinsato.com > twitter: @hajush > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
_______________________________________________ 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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
