The etymology of "weird" is from the old English word wyrd which has to do with a kind of irresistible fate, an undeniable and inseparable unfolding of all things.
So Harrison, to answer your question - it is indeed wyrd. Chris. -- CHRIS CORRIGAN Harvest Moon Consultants Facilitation, Open Space Technology and process design Check www.chriscorrigan.com for upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources. > On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Harrison Owen <hho...@verizon.net> wrote: > > So My Friend... Great Story! And – to raise the ante... Just suppose... It’s > all FLOW. > > Does that really make any difference? I think so. At least it has for me. The > structures of my life, and the life around me are (I do experience), > momentary imprints on my consciousness. A passing image. No more. No less. > > And what does all that have to do with Open Space? Practically, it had meant > that the difference between “Begin” and “End” – is zero. When I am sitting in > the Circle (First or Last)... I’m just “there.” No Time. No particular > Space. Could be Beijing, Washington, Delhi.... It is all the same. All > Different. No Breath. Deep Breath... > > How’s that for weird? > > HO > > From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of > Chris Corrigan via OSList > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:08 PM > To: paul levy; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness > > My exploration of the Tao te Ching over the years has left me with the > realization that structure and flow are co-arising: they come into being > together and exist and mutually influence each other. How I live my life, > shapes my body, and my body’s shape determines how I live my life, and both > those things change together forever until I die and one or other of these > things disappears. > > The idea that one exists separate from the other is a kind of delusion. And > ignoring the reality that both structure and flow arise together means that > you end up imposing structure when you don’t think your are, or imposing flow > when you don’t think you are, from a kind of blind spot. That can be quite > dangerous to living systems. > > Chris > > > > > On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:00 AM, paul levy via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > > Is this list a tyranny of structurelessness? > > On 6 October 2015 at 16:56, Michael Herman via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > Yes and Daniel, there are the words of a story and the feeling/meaning of it. > I considered writing a longer message in the telling of this story, but I > wanted to transmit as much of the spirit/experience of it as I could. > > Ralph didn't offer any explanation of his observation that morning. He did > just like I said, got up in a morning news circle, it was an OTgathering as I > noted but that doesn't matter, it was open space and morning news. He said > his piece and sat down. The experience for me, and others I have learned only > later, was stunning and disorienting, for sure. > > I thought to honor and convey this experience through some measure of similar > brevity in my retelling. Maybe this is what you picked up on. The > disorienting magic of Ralph's moment. > > There are moments in open space of surprise and disconnect, maybe frustration > or confusion or misunderstanding or disorientation and even disappointment > that arise in open space. This we all know and have experienced. This, to me, > is not so much a thing to be solved but the nature of the territory. It just > is. > > Ralph never did explain his statement, as far as I know. He had something to > say and he said it. That was his only job. After that, each of us had to > figure out for ourselves what, if anything, to do with his story, to decide > if it was wisdom or wisecrack. The storyteller, I think, has only the > responsibility for finding and sharing what's true for him/her. The rest is > up to us. > > Maybe this points to the learning and challenge that we all have in open > space, namely learning to trust more and more that we already are always > included in a flow that is bigger and deeper or whatever than we can see or > understand or articulate sometimes. Exclusion is the illusion. A little bit > of errant and temporary mental structure. Discomfort is not a problem (and > can't be solved by anyone!); it's a trail marker. Which is to say about > exclusion and missing out, "welcome!" The good news is, and the bad news is, > you're in! And, it's all still happening Now. > > As I scroll up to send tha now, I notice the word tyranny again in the > subject. Is it not some kind of tyranny we all attempt over and over again > when we expect and insist that the world explain itself to/for us? Is this > not something of our central challenge, something all of us work with? The > edge of open space is an end of comfortable, conventional understanding? Or > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Daniel Mezick via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > Hi Harrison, > > Thanks for the tips on how to search OSLIST and Google, etc. I did do those > things actually. However, that's a bit of an effort, especially searching the > OSLIST archives. I guess I could eventually pick up OSLIST culture that way, > little by little. I suppose an earnest person with loads of time could sift > through OSLIST archives to figure this culture out. The hard way. > > However, like the SPIRIT book teaches, there is nothing like a good story to > convey culture. The kind of story with a beginning, a middle and an end. > > I notice that, when you are the one referring to a certain OS-mythos story, > you usually tend to include the short list of pertinent details, the > essential details that provide the essential context, so the reader can > follow along, and engage. > > And I'm always grateful for that, as it helps me to follow along, and get > what you are referring to, and more fully understand the story, and feel > oddly included in the story. > > > Earlier, I express how not having the context tends to (for me) arouse > feelings of: exclusion, cluelessness, and a general lack of membership in > whatever "historic-OS-mythos-episode" is being referred to. Sort of an "out > group" feeling. You know? Sometimes, I wonder what the poster might be > thinking by posting random fragments of a "you had to be there" kind of > story. Other times, I wonder if other readers are also feeling these > feelings. Or if it is "just me." > > And so: I am very grateful for your stories, in part because you include the > pertinent details, and in so doing, make me (for one) feel included. > > So thanks for including the context in your stories. It makes them fun, and > easy to follow. OSLIST culture certainly has it's quirks, and for me, your > stories make this culture easier to figure out, and navigate, and enjoy. > > > Getting back to the Tyranny of Structurelessness: > > Do you think these 3 assertions by the author are actually true? Do these > ideas have legs? > This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of > "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, > only formal ones. > For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to > participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit, not implicit. > It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which > forms the basis for elites. > > Daniel > > On 10/6/15 10:04 AM, Harrison Owen wrote: > Dan, Google can often help. https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman > > ho > > From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of > Daniel Mezick via OSList > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:51 PM > To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness > > Howdy Harrison, > > Thanks for describing the context of the Ralph Copleman story- I'm very > thankful for that info. > > I notice that, lots of times here, there are references made to notable OST > episodes, and situations from times past... > > ...the "OST-mythos" as it were. > > These mythical stories often have me wondering what I missed, and what I > might now be missing. (Being clueless as I am.) > > I'm sure these story-fragment postings are not posted with intent to exclude > anyone, or to be discourteous, or unkind. More like: some good old basic > camaraderie is taking place between some old friends. > > Still: Do these "inside-story-fragments" on OSLIST tend to evoke feelings of > exclusion in readers who were not there at the time? > > Not sure. > > <CONFESSION> > > As for me, personally, I sometimes find myself experiencing curiously odd > feelings of exclusion, when a told-fragment of an old OST-mythos story lacks > explicit context. So I can follow the story, you know? The terms "outsider" > or "clueless" or "not in the story" describe these feelings fairly well. > "Not invited?" > > I sometimes wonder if some of the hundreds of other members of OSLIST ever > feel this way...or if it is "just me." > > </CONFESSION> > > Daniel > > > > On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote: > “Everything is moving.† .... Michael -- I remember that moment very > well. And Dan, I’m not sure the context, etc, would help very much. But > just for the record the odd phrase popped out at one of the International > Symposia on Organization Transformation which happened to be taking place at > a small college south of Seattle. I have no idea why Ralph said what he did, > and I’m not sure Ralph did either. But then again a lot of marvelous stuff > seems to burst out with no obvious logic train. Indeed it may be that the > lack of logic train enables the thought? >  > Whatever the genesis, the phrase wandered about my head for some time, quite > unattached, and it also happened that I was working my way slowly through one > of the masterpieces of 20th century western philosophy when a fuzzy > connection began to form. The work was that of Alfred North Whitehead, and > the title: “Process and Reality.†I’ve been through the book probably > 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I don’t think I really understand > it. But then again I’ve heard a number of people with much greater > credentials, tenure, etc – say the same thing. But I did get that it had > something to do with, “Everything is moving.†And the more I thought and > read, the more I felt that the good philosopher had made a small mistake on > his title. It shouldn’t be “Process and Reality,†but rather “Process > is Reality.†>  > Now, Anna Caroline we come to “structure,†or perhaps I should say the > fallacy of Structure? Yes I know – we’ve all been taught that structure > is the precursor, the “determinator†of everything. My face looks as it > does because of my bone structure. My life proceeds the way it does because > of my social structure. My business works as it does because of the > organizational structure. And of course, meetings happen the way they do > because of meeting structure, which apparently is the prime domain of > “facilitators.†And even if we hadn’t been “taught†all this, the > primacy of structure would appear to be blatantly obvious – as plain as the > nose on your face. >  > Unfortunately, it does seem to turn out that sometimes the blatantly obvious > is not necessarily so. For example just looking at things it is pretty clear > that the world is flat, or at the least bumpy flat. And any fool can see that > we are the center of it all – Sun, moon, and stars whiz around us. But > when we think about it, as we have been doing for the last 500-600 years, the > obvious isn’t so obvious. >  > It is reasonable to ask what would start to make us think differently – to > the point that we begin to question the obvious, and even come to see things > in a different way? Taking a leap, I will suggest that it all begins with the > perception of anomaly. Things just don’t make sense. Our eyes tell us one > thing... but???? And then we start making up stories to explain the > apparently unexplainable. We imagine different ways of looking at things so > that the nonsensical makes sense. Some of those stories get pretty strange, > but if they actually work – that is to say, help us to see in new and > useful ways – that’s great! >  > There is, of course, a proper term for the activity I have been describing. > It is called Theory Building. And for whatever it is worth, “theory†comes > from the Greek “theorein†– to see. In a word, theories are ways of > looking at things – likely stories you might say. >  > Now, at long last (too long?) we come to the odd story I was starting to > tell, to the effect that Structure is only a figment of our imagination, a > flash frame of a moment gone by. Interesting, and helpful under some > circumstances... but always partial and in a sense illusory. What’s > “really†happening is all flow. Everything is moving – That’s > Ralph’s story, and I guess it is mine too. >  > So how did I get to such a weird condition? It was all about anomaly – more > particularly, the anomaly of Open Space. Everything that I had ever learned > told me that it could not work. Unfortunately it did (work) – and not just > once, but every time, hundreds of thousands of times. Something was > definitely weird. It seemed to me that I had to re-consider all those things > I thought I had learned, beginning with the basics... such things as > Structure. >  > Common sense would say that Open Space works because we somehow created a > structure that enabled it to work. That’s the way things get done, or so I > had been taught. But that’s not the way things happened in Open Space. > Structure emerged along the way and only momentarily. Worse yet it > (structure) seemed to have little to do with the obvious power, connections, > creativity.... all of which created structures, and passed them by. And > actually it always seemed to me that the “structures†I “saw†existed > only because I wanted to see them – or perhaps that I “should†see them. > But they were only momentary wisps, figments – never to be mistaken for > what was really going on. Or so I’ve been thinking. >  > Harrison >  >  >  >  >  >  > From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of > Michael Herman via OSList > Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 6:31 PM > To: JL Walker; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness >  > you remind me, harrison, of one morning news session years ago, somewhere, > probably OT... where ralph copleman walked to the center of the circle and > announced, all serious and mischievous at the same time, "it's all moving!"  >  > then put the stick down and went back to his seat. > >  > -- > > Michael Herman > Michael Herman Associates > http://MichaelHerman.com > http://OpenSpaceWorld.org > >  > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:47 PM, JL Walker via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > I was thinking that maybe the antidote to the eventual tyranny of > structurelessness is to open space, again and again, until true democracy can > emerge. >  > Juan Luis >  > De: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] En nombre de Rosa > Zubizarreta via OSList > Enviado el: sábado, 03 de octubre de 2015 12:19 > Para: Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Asunto: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness >  > Hi Daniel, > > Yes, this is a key piece... I see it as very similar in some ways to what Ken > Wilber wrote later, > about the "shadow side of the green meme". (Each meme has its own shadow, as > well as its own gift...) > > So, I love "green". I love circles, I love non-hierarchy, etc. > And, part of the "shadow side of the green meme" is how ideologically > anti-structure it can become... > to the point where some people may not even agree that OST does, in fact, > offer a very simple and effective structure. > > By way contrast, think of a situation where group of people (who don't know > about OST, and/or, who are having a power struggle around "which process to > use", and/or.... ) might easily spending a whole weekend arguing about "how > to self-organize ourselves"... with a great deal more pain and frustration > and a great deal less value. > > whereas, instead, IF someone knows about OST, and, a clear invitation has > been extended, and, there is enough trust/suspension of disbelief so that > participants are willing to enter into that format, > > then, we end up with a very simple and elegant structure that allows people > to self-organize beautifully.... > > at least that's how i see it! :-) > > with all best wishes, > > Rosa >  > > > Rosa Zubizarreta > Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent Leadership > Author of From Conflict to Creative Collaboration > > For more resources and learning opportunities, visit > www.DiaPraxis.com >  > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS > by Jo Freeman aka Joreen > > I find this essay extremely interesting. I hope you do, too. > > > > Here is a pertinent quote, from the essay: > "...the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of > informal structures, only formal ones." > > > Circa 1970. Context: the women's movement. Quick summary of the main points: > from the essay... > > ï· During the years in which the women's liberation movement has been > taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, > structureless groups as the main -- if not sole -- organizational form of the > movement. > ï· The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy > counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right. > ï· Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a > structureless group. > ï· This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as > deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social > science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic > as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong > or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. > ï· This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of > "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, > only formal ones. > ï· For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and > to participate in its activities, the structure must be explicit, not > implicit. > ï· It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, > which forms the basis for elites. > > > Just in case you have not yet encountered the full text of this essay, here > it is: > > THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS > by Jo Freeman aka Joreen > http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm > > > > Regards, > Daniel > http://www.OpenSpaceAgility.com/about > http://www.DanielMezick.com > 203 915 7248 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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. > > -- > 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. > > > -- > > -- > > Michael Herman > Michael Herman Associates > http://MichaelHerman.com > http://OpenSpaceWorld.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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
