subject:"Re\: \[OSList\] The Tyranny of Structurelessness"

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-13 Thread Pernilla Luttropp via OSList

Hi!
I just want to add another perspective on ³structures². It¹s about the
structures of oppression that is so hard to be aware of, especially if you
are looking from the angle of a privileged position. I think Marylin Frey, a
philosophy professor and feminist, describes it very well in this quote:

³Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage,
you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is
determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and
down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly
around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if,
one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not
see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere.
There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest
scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or
harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step
back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a
macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not
go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great
subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is
surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which
would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to
each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.²
from Politics Of Reality  Essays In Feminist Theory (1983)

/Pernilla

Den 2015-10-10 14:44, skrev "Harold Shinsato via OSList"
:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> This is an inquiry that I enjoy and which I keep spinning around. It seems
> crystal clear to me that the topic of tyranny has value and sheds light. And
> it's also paradoxically true that the right/wrong victim/perpetrator narrative
> disempowers and lays blame. It relieves responsibility.
> 
> Holding these two contradictory truths at the same time let's me wonder how I
> contribute to tyrannical power structures (flows), and how I can learn from
> them, or help them flow into something else.
> 
> The Tyranny of Structurelessness essay was introduced to me at the Agile 2012
> conference in Texas by an agilista cognoscenti, who also half jokingly called
> Agile a "liberation theology". It popped up for me again by a young attendee
> at WOSONOS 2013 in Florida, before the difficult and disorienting process of
> choosing the location for 2014 in Serbia, who advocated a formal consensus
> process created by the Food Not Bombs activist, C.T. Butler.
> 
> I love OST for how it tends to plant and nurture responsibility in communities
> and organizations, and at the same time, the beauty of Open Space Technology
> seems to be mostly hidden under a basket.
> 
> I don't see a closing to the inquiry questions you raise any time soon. The
> questions are likely more permanent than any experiments we try. But the
> questions have led me to explore authority in "The Power of TED", Group
> Relations, Dr. Christopher Avery's work on Responsibility, C.T. Butler and
> formal consensus, and Sociocracy. But, no final answers - if there could be
> such a thing.
> 
> Harold
> 
> On Oct 8, 2015 3:23 PM, "Michael Herman via OSList"
>  wrote:
>> >
>> > i love this bit about bucky the verb, harold.
>> >
>> > what i don't understand about this tyranny business is that it sounds like
>> somebody, the system or some people are doing some other people wrong.
>>  alternatively, that somehow -- naturally or maybe just unconsciously or
>> unintentionally -- winners and losers, ins and outs, are being created.  i
>> can't tell if the suggestion is that this is a malicious thing to be
>> defeated, a natural thing to observe, or some kind of problem to be solved.  
>> >
>> > leaving aside those instances when people do truly horrible things to
>> others, how does this tyranny story square with the core open space story
>> that each of us is ultimately responsible for our own experience, we all have
>> two feet or some equivalent and need to use them for ourselves?  
>> >
>> > how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?  or
>> participating on the list?  if everything in the essay is true, what should
>> the next wosonos invitation process look like?  can we put this in practice
>> terms?   what is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing structurelessness?
>>  what has anyone done in the past, in those instances you've seen, that made
>> some positive difference?  
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  
>> > --
>> >
>> > 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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-10 Thread John's Email via OSList

oes 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 
>>>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-10 Thread John's Email via OSList

hat’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...
> 
> 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.
> The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy counter to 
> those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.
> Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a 
> structureless group.
> This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as 
> deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-fr

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-10 Thread Harold Shinsato via OSList

Hi Michael,

This is an inquiry that I enjoy and which I keep spinning around. It seems
crystal clear to me that the topic of tyranny has value and sheds light.
And it's also paradoxically true that the right/wrong victim/perpetrator
narrative disempowers and lays blame. It relieves responsibility.

Holding these two contradictory truths at the same time let's me wonder how
I contribute to tyrannical power structures (flows), and how I can learn
from them, or help them flow into something else.

The Tyranny of Structurelessness essay was introduced to me at the Agile
2012 conference in Texas by an agilista cognoscenti, who also half jokingly
called Agile a "liberation theology". It popped up for me again by a young
attendee at WOSONOS 2013 in Florida, before the difficult and disorienting
process of choosing the location for 2014 in Serbia, who advocated a formal
consensus process created by the Food Not Bombs activist, C.T. Butler.

I love OST for how it tends to plant and nurture responsibility in
communities and organizations, and at the same time, the beauty of Open
Space Technology seems to be mostly hidden under a basket.

I don't see a closing to the inquiry questions you raise any time soon. The
questions are likely more permanent than any experiments we try. But the
questions have led me to explore authority in "The Power of TED", Group
Relations, Dr. Christopher Avery's work on Responsibility, C.T. Butler and
formal consensus, and Sociocracy. But, no final answers - if there could be
such a thing.

Harold

On Oct 8, 2015 3:23 PM, "Michael Herman via OSList" <
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
> i love this bit about bucky the verb, harold.
>
> what i don't understand about this tyranny business is that it sounds
like somebody, the system or some people are doing some other people wrong.
 alternatively, that somehow -- naturally or maybe just unconsciously or
unintentionally -- winners and losers, ins and outs, are being created.  i
can't tell if the suggestion is that this is a malicious thing to be
defeated, a natural thing to observe, or some kind of problem to be solved.

>
> leaving aside those instances when people do truly horrible things to
others, how does this tyranny story square with the core open space story
that each of us is ultimately responsible for our own experience, we all
have two feet or some equivalent and need to use them for ourselves?
>
> how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?  or
participating on the list?  if everything in the essay is true, what should
the next wosonos invitation process look like?  can we put this in practice
terms?   what is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing
structurelessness?  what has anyone done in the past, in those instances
you've seen, that made some positive difference?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Michael M Pannwitz via OSList


Dear Anne,

my email system has two choices for responding.

One is "Reply", which I chose for this email I am just writing to you.
It goes to you and OSLIST.

The other is "Reply List". When I chose that, it will actually go to the 
list only.


When I write to the LIST (or respond to "Reply" to an email I received 
from the LIST) I always get an email from the LIST telling me that my 
email was accepted. I think that function is something I chose in the 
LIST Menu because I dont get the emails I sent to the LIST in my "LIST 
in box" (that, I understand has something to do with my email system 
itself).


H

Have a great day... this includes everyone on the LIST!
greetings from Berlin
mmp



On 08.10.2015 02:47, Anne A Hiha via OSList wrote:

Hi all

On where the replies go.

I have noticed that my email automatively defaults to the postee's
e-address. I have to cut and paste the open space address into the 'To'
for it to be posted to this list. This situation may be the same for
others. I tested my theory on this email with the 'reply' and 'reply
all' functions with the same result that the reply would have gone
direct to Daniel if I had proceded.

I don't know whether this issue is related to my email setup or OsList's.

Kind regards

Anne


To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:53:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
From: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

mmp,

Thanks for posting this under [The Tyranny of Structurelessness.]

How interesting that subscribers feel more comfortable contacting you
personally by email, rather than responding here.

Apparently you are more approachable for interactions and/or easier to
interact with than OSLIST. I'm sure there is more than one specific
reason "why" this might be true.

Daniel

On 10/7/15 5:16 PM, Michael M Pannwitz via OSList wrote:

One of the structures, customs, ways of doing stuff, call it what
you prefer  I have repeatedly noticed: A number of Members of the
LIST I never see on the LIST send responses to stuff I put on the
LIST. When I think  a message would be great for the whole LIST to
see, I suggest it to the sender. Them Lurkers are definitely a "call
it what you prefer" element of our organisation.

Cheers from Berlin
mmp



On 07.10.2015 22:48, Michael Herman via OSList wrote:

wasn't actually intended as personal feedback, daniel.  was
meant to be
a comment on the territory we all share, even when we might, any
of us,
feel in the moment like an outsider, that disorientation is
actually a
part of being included in the experience of open space.

as for the essay, i guess i'm still a little unclear about the
connection.  open space doesn't strike me as any sort of
striving for
structurelessness.  and i've seen both formal and informal
structure
arise in open space.  harrison's term in his "millennial
organization"
book and what i've seen happen is "appropriate levels of
structure and
control."

the oslist doesn't seem structureless, either.  there are all
kinds of
limiting and supporting structures that make it possible.  and then
there are the customs we've developed, like it's common and
desired for
people to reply to the whole list with answers to questions, and
even
personal stories and sidebars, rather than always taking that
stuff to
private emails.  much of the informal stuff was captured in chris
corrigan's oslist faq's i mentioned earlier.  and these things
change.
   the address changed.  the admin changed.  the archives moved but
survived, thanks to harold.  now we allow attachments.  the
archives
were private and later became publicly searchable.  new people
show up
all the time, and join in.  the user's non-guide (ebook)
captured one
great moment in joining when julie smith showed up very new to
all of
this, asked some great questions, and sparked all kinds of
conversation
on many important dimensions of the practice.

maybe your definition of structure will also define
structureless.  i
guess i don't know what ever could be structureless, in line
wiht chris'
story... except that everything's moving, it's all flow, as
harrison
says.  but maybe those two stories aren't at odds, either...
some bits
are just more dense or more slowly flowing than others, but it's
all
flow in the end.  is flow structureless?

is the tyranny of structurelessness just to say that everything's

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Harold Shinsato via OSList

Hi Anne,

The OSLIST messages are explicitly designed using a standard email
"structure" of a "reply-to" field that goes to the list and to the sender.
Most email programs use that field so when you hit reply it uses the
requested list of reply-to recipients.

This reply-to field is really only a work "flow" recommendation and any
email program can potentially ignore it. The OSLIST can't tyrannically
force email programs to obey.

;-)

Regards,
Harold
___
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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Harold Shinsato via OSList

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>>>
>>> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that moment
>>> very well. And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But then again a
>>> lot of marvelous stuff seems to burst out with no obvious logic train.
>>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

res, 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.



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."



Daniel



On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

â€œEverythingis moving.â€ Â  Michael -- I remember
that moment verywell. And Dan, Iâ€™m not sure the
context, etc, would helpvery 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 Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But then
againa 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?

Â

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 20^th century western philosophy when a
fuzzy connection began to form. The work was that of
Alfred North Whitehead, and the title: â€œProcess and
Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through thebook probably 4-5
times, and I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t think I
really understandit. But then again Iâ€™veheardÂ  a
number of people with much greater credentials, tenure,
etc â€“ say the same thing. But I did get that ithad
something to do with, â€œEverything is moving.â€ Andthe
more I thought and read, the more I felt that the good
philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It
shouldnâ€™t be â€œProcess/and/ Reality,â€ but
ratherâ€œProcess*is* Reality.â€

Â

Now, Anna Caroline we come to â€œstructure,â€ or perhaps
Ishould say the fallacy of Structure? Yes I know â€“
weâ€™ve all been taught that structure is the precursor,
the â€œdeterminatorâ€ of everything. My face looks as it
doesbecause 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 â€œfacilitators.â€ And even if we
hadnâ€™t beenâ€œtaughtâ€ all this, the primacy of
structure would appearto be blatantly obvious â€“ as
plain as the nose on yourface.

Â

Unfo

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

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>
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ho
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* OSList [ <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org>
>>> mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org
>>> <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.
>>>
>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Anne A Hiha via OSList

Hi Harold

Thanks for that. It is no biggie, I like solving mysteries and this one is 
frustrating me. The tyranny of not knowing sits uncomfortably on me, and I am 
beginning to thing that the ether is taking over the 'reply' functions on my 
email. I did not have to paste the OSList address into this email, but for all 
the others I have tested (without actually pushing the 'send' button) I 
notice that there is no OSList address.  

Regards

Anne

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 03:34:11 -0600
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
From: har...@shinsato.com
To: anne_a_h...@hotmail.com; oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

Hi Anne,
The OSLIST messages are explicitly designed using a standard email "structure" 
of a "reply-to" field that goes to the list and to the sender. Most email 
programs use that field so when you hit reply it uses the requested list of 
reply-to recipients.
This reply-to field is really only a work "flow" recommendation and any email 
program can potentially ignore it. The OSLIST can't tyrannically force email 
programs to obey.
;-)
Regards,

Harold___
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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-08 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

;>> That's a question I'm keen to explore with you, and the other members of
>>> this list, inside this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel
>>> http://www.Prime-OS.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/6/15 11:56 AM, Michael Herman 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 t

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-07 Thread Michael M Pannwitz via OSList

oster 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>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.



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."



Daniel



On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

â€œEverythingis moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember
that moment verywell. And Dan, Iâ€™m not sure the
context, etc, would helpvery 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 Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But then againa
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?

Â

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 20^th century western philosophy when a
fuzzy connection began to form. The work was that of
Alfred North Whitehead, and the title: â€œProcess and
Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through thebook probably 4-5
times, and I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t think I
really understandit. But then again Iâ€™veheardÂ  a
number of people with much greater credentials, tenure,
etc â€“ say the same thing. But I did get that ithad
something to do with, â€œEverything is moving.â€ Andthe
more I thought and read, the more I felt that the good
philosopher h

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-07 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

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>
>> 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.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> 
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>>
>> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that moment very
>> well. And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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?
>>
>> Â
>>
>> 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: â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through
>> the book probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t
>> think I really understand it. But then again Iâ€™ve heardÂ  a number of
>> people with much greater credentials, tenure, etc â€“ say the same
>> thing. But I did get that it had something to do with, â€œEverything is
>> moving.â€ And the more I thought and read, the more I felt that the good
>> philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It shouldnâ€™t be
>> â€œProcess *and* Reality,â€ bu

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-07 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

u 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>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.



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."



Daniel



On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

â€œEverythingis moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember
that moment verywell. And Dan, Iâ€™m not sure the
context, etc, would helpvery 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 Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But then againa
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?

Â

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 20^th century western philosophy when a
fuzzy connection began to form. The work was that of
Alfred North Whitehead, and the title: â€œProcess and
Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through thebook

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-07 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

lly 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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.



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."



Daniel



On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

â€œEverythingis moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that
moment verywell. And Dan, Iâ€™m not sure the context, etc,
would helpvery 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 Iâ€™m not sure Ralph did either. But
then againa 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?

Â

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
20^th century western philosophy when a fuzzy connection
began to form. The work was that of Alfred North Whitehead,
and the title: â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through
thebook probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-07 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList


Yes

On 10/7/15 1:41 AM, anne.bennett8ac via OSList wrote:

Yes


Sent from Samsung Mobile


 Original message 
From: paul levy via OSList
Date:06/10/2015 19:00 (GMT+00:00)
To: Michael Herman , World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Is this list a tyranny of structurelessness?

On 6 October 2015 at 16:5


___
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 <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog 
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.


Examine my new book:The Culture Game 
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the 
Agile Manager.


Explore Agile Team Training 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>


Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>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
Past archives can be viewed here: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread anne.bennett8ac via OSList

Yes 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 Original message From: paul levy via OSList 
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> Date:06/10/2015  19:00  (GMT+00:00) 
To: Michael Herman <mich...@michaelherman.com>, World wide Open 
Space Technology email list <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> 
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness 
Is this list a tyranny of structurelessness?

On 6 October 2015 at 16:5___
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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList


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.



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."




Daniel



On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

âEverythingis moving.âÂ  Michael -- I remember that moment
verywell. And Dan, Iâm not sure the context, etc, would helpvery
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 Iâm not sure Ralph
did either. But then againa 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?

Â

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 20^

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Chris Corrigan via OSList

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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Chris Corrigan via OSList

he 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 
>> <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. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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." 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Daniel 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>> 
>> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that moment very 
>> well. And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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?
>> 
>> Â 
>> 
>> 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 
>>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Monica Nissen via OSList

e 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 
>>> <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. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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." 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Daniel 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/4/15

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Harrison Owen via OSList

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,

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Rosa Zubizarreta via OSList

IST 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.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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
>>> eve

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread paul levy via OSList

uirks, 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.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> 
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>>
>> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that moment very
>> well. And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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?
>>
>> Â
>>
>> 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: â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through
>> the book probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t
>> think I really understand it. But then again Iâ€™ve heardÂ  a number of
>> people with much greater credentials, tenure, etc â€“ say the same
>> thing. But I did get that it had something to do with, â€œEverything is
>> moving.â€ And the more I thought and read, the more I felt that the good
>> philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It shouldnâ€™t be
>> â€œProcess *and* Reality,â€ but rather â€œProcess *is* Reality.â€
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Now, Anna Caroline we come to â€œstructure,â€ or perhaps I should say
>> the fallacy of Structure? Yes I know â€“ weâ€™ve all been taught that
>> structure is the precursor, the â€œdeterminatorâ€ of everything. My

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Rosa Zubizarreta via OSList

y of informal power
>> arrangements arising in groups, and what to do about it, including clear
>> and simple and helpful structures can help minimize it, was hugely valuable
>> for me.
>>
>> Basically what she says is that people are always developing informal
>> power hierarchies, based on charisma, or looks, or previous friendships,
>> etc and that some of the best ways of working with that, include a)
>> making it something that can be acknowledged and explored, rather than it
>> being an "undiscussable" because we are "supposed to be an egalitaran
>> group" and b) to offer clear ways for people to contribute, so that
>> it's clear and explicit, how people can become more involved, and thus gain
>> greater social currency in constructive ways. (I am majorly paraphrasing
>> here, with a quite rusty memory, so please don't take any of this too
>> literally.)
>>
>> Sorry I can't give you references at the moment... my library is spread
>> out over a few different households at present. But thank you for your own
>> fearlessness in raising this topic.
>>
>> with all best wishes,
>>
>> Rosa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rosa Zubizarreta *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent Leadership Author of From
>> Conflict to Creative Collaboration <http://www.conflict2creativity.com> *
>>
>> *For more resources and learning opportunities, visit **www.DiaPraxis.com
>> <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
>> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Greeting Marie, Anna, Dirk, Michael, Rosa, JL, Harrison (...did I miss
>>> anyone? sorry of I did) ...
>>>
>>>  I do like this essay. A lot. 
>>>
>>> Thanks for interacting around this provocative essay "The Tyranny of
>>> Structurelessness."
>>>
>>> The essay certainly does challenge some of our most cherished
>>> assumptions, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> The essay is issuing a clear and specific warning about tyranny
>>> developing in groups that value "structurelessness."
>>>
>>> I hold this as a (current) belief, about healthy groups:
>>> *"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. **"*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Reiterating some of the key assertions (provocations?) in the essay,
>>> "The Tyranny of Structurelessness"...
>>>
>>> for a moment, let's pretend the following assertions by the author
>>> are true.
>>>
>>> Assuming these assertions **are** true, what are some of the
>>> implications ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>- Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
>>>as a structureless group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>- 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>- 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/5/15 12:38 PM, Marie Nelson via OSList wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting array of perspectives on structures. I sometimes distinguish 
>>> between content structures (agendas, syllabi that function for command and 
>>> control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact 
>>> at the

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Harrison Owen via OSList

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. 



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." 



Daniel 





On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:

â€œEverything is moving.â€Â   Michael -- I remember that moment very well. 
And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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?

Â 

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: 
â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through the book probably 4-5 times, and 
I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t think I really understand it. But then 
again Iâ€™ve heardÂ  a number of people with much greater credentials, tenure, 
etc â€“ say the same thing. But I did get that it had something to do with, 
â€œEverything is moving.â€ And the more I thought and read, the more I felt 
that the good philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It shouldnâ€™t 
be â€œProcess and Reality,â€ but rather â€œProcess is Reality.â€

Â 

Now, Anna Caroline we come to â€œstructure,â€ or perhaps I should say the 
fallacy of Structure? Yes I know â€“ weâ€™ve all been taught that structure is 
the precursor, the â€œdeterminatorâ€ 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 â€œfacilitators.â€ And even 
if we hadnâ€™t been â€œtaughtâ€ all this, the primacy of structure would 
appear to be blatantly obvious â€“ as plain as the nose on your face. 

Â 

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 â€“ Sun, moon, and stars whiz around us.Â  But when we 
think about it, as we have been doing for the last 500-600 years, the obvious 
isnâ€™t so obvious. 

Â 

It is reasonable to ask what would start to make us think differently â€“ 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 donâ€™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 â€“ that is to say, help us to see in new and useful ways â€“ 
thatâ€™s great!

Â 

There is, of course, a proper term for the activity I have been describing. It 
is called Theory Building. And for wha

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-06 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>
> 
>
> 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."
>
> 
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 10/4/15 2:59 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>
> â€œEverything is moving.â€ Â   Michael -- I remember that moment very
> well. And Dan, Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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?
>
> Â
>
> 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: â€œProcess and Reality.â€ Iâ€™ve been through
> the book probably 4-5 times, and I am frank to confess that I donâ€™t
> think I really understand it. But then again Iâ€™ve heardÂ  a number of
> people with much greater credentials, tenure, etc â€“ say the same thing.
> But I did get that it had something to do with, â€œEverything is
> moving.â€ And the more I thought and read, the more I felt that the good
> philosopher had made a small mistake on his title. It shouldnâ€™t be
> â€œProcess *and* Reality,â€ but rather â€œProcess *is* Reality.â€
>
> Â
>
> Now, Anna Caroline we come to â€œstructure,â€ or perhaps I should say the
> fallacy of Structure? Yes I know â€“ weâ€™ve all been taught that
> structure is the precursor, the â€œdeterminatorâ€ 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 â€œfacilitators.â€ And even if we hadnâ€™t been â€œtaughtâ€ all
> this, the primacy of structure would appear to be blatantly obvious â€“
> as plain as the nose on your face.
>
> Â
>
> 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 â€“ Sun, moon, and stars
> whiz around us.Â  But when we think about it, as we have been doing for
> the last

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

 flash frame of a moment gone by. Interesting, and 
helpful under some circumstances... but always partial and in a sense 
illusory. Whatâs âreallyâ happening is all flow. Everything is 
moving â Thatâs Ralphâs story, and I guess it is mine too.


Â

So how did I get to such a weird condition? It was all about 
anomaly â more particularly, the anomaly of Open Space. Everything 
that I had ever learned told me that it could not work. Unfortunately 
it did (work) â 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.


Â

Common sense would say that Open Space works because we somehow 
created a structure that enabled it to work. Thatâs the way things 
get done, or so I had been taught. But thatâs 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 âstructuresâ I âsawâ existed only because I wanted to 
see them â or perhaps that I âshouldâ see them. But they were 
only momentary wisps, figments â never to be mistaken for what was 
really going on. Or so Iâve been thinking.


Â

Harrison

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

*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

Â

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!" Â


Â

then put the stick down and went back to his seat.Â


Â
--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org

Â

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:47 PM, JL Walker via OSList 
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org 
<mailto: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.


Â

Juan Luis

Â

*De:*OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org 
<mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org>] *En nombre de *Rosa 
Zubizarreta via OSList

*Enviado el:* sÃ¡bado, 03 de octubre de 2015 12:19
*Para:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Asunto:* Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Â

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/orÂ  ) 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

Â


*/Rosa Zubizarreta/*

/Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent Leadership
Author of *From Conflict to Creative Collaboration* 
<http://www.conflict2creativity.com>/


/For more resources and learning opportunities, visit
*www.DiaPraxis.com <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*/

Â

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...


  * /During the years in which the women's liberation movement has
been taki

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

omaly – 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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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*
<http://www.conflict2creativity.com>/

/For more resources and learning opportunities, visit
*www.DiaPraxis.com <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*/

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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...

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

gt; fearlessness in raising this topic.
>
> with all best wishes,
>
> Rosa
>
>
>
>
> *Rosa Zubizarreta *
>
>
>
> *Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent Leadership Author of From
> Conflict to Creative Collaboration <http://www.conflict2creativity.com> *
>
> *For more resources and learning opportunities, visit **www.DiaPraxis.com
> <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
>> Greeting Marie, Anna, Dirk, Michael, Rosa, JL, Harrison (...did I miss
>> anyone? sorry of I did) ...
>>
>>  I do like this essay. A lot. 
>>
>> Thanks for interacting around this provocative essay "The Tyranny of
>> Structurelessness."
>>
>> The essay certainly does challenge some of our most cherished
>> assumptions, doesn't it?
>>
>> The essay is issuing a clear and specific warning about tyranny
>> developing in groups that value "structurelessness."
>>
>> I hold this as a (current) belief, about healthy groups:
>> *"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. **"*
>>
>>
>>
>> Reiterating some of the key assertions (provocations?) in the essay, "The
>> Tyranny of Structurelessness"...
>>
>> for a moment, let's pretend the following assertions by the author
>> are true.
>>
>> Assuming these assertions **are** true, what are some of the implications
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>- Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
>>as a structureless group.
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/15 12:38 PM, Marie Nelson via OSList wrote:
>>
>> Interesting array of perspectives on structures. I sometimes distinguish 
>> between content structures (agendas, syllabi that function for command and 
>> control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact 
>> at the point of choice).
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: OSList <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> 
>> <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> on behalf of via OSList 
>> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:27 AM
>> To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
>> Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>>
>> Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
>> valuable to me!
>>
>> Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I 
>> am pretty aware of the shadows...
>>
>> For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
>> element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
>> structure. Etc.
>>
>> Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
>> imagination.
>>
>> I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
>> tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision 
>> making, dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real 
>> stuff to me.
>>
>> I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
>> it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

 realistic as a "laissez
faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong
or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others.


  * 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.





On 10/5/15 12:38 PM, Marie Nelson via OSList wrote:

Interesting array of perspectives on structures. I sometimes distinguish 
between content structures (agendas, syllabi that function for command and 
control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact at 
the point of choice).

Marie






From: OSList<oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org>
<mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org>  on behalf of via 
OSList<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
<mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
valuable to me!

Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I 
am pretty aware of the shadows...

For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
structure. Etc.

Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
imagination.

I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision making, 
dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real stuff to me.

I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of flow with 
ease and joy.

Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and 
ease in a meeting.

Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the 
tomato is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed  it 
can supports the tomato to grow.

The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is 
growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and 
development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable 
flow and healthy growth.

I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease 
and creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by the 
'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those factors 
as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/ processes I 
facilitate:

- is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
- what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these 
values?
- what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have 
a uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super 
clear and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear 
honest about our assumptions when we create structure.
Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our 
organization, our movement...
The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order 
to create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the 
opportunity to take leadership for inspired action.
Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people experimenting, 
sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility and leadership.

Depending on my abilities, resources and assumptions, and 
consciousness/awareness I create structures as a facilitator. My wish is to 
design and facilitate meetings where people connect with their passion and take 
leadership. My aim is to be very clear why I create which structures and I do 
my best to stay open to learn from the group and adopt the structure  to their 
needs if needed.

I believe the purpose of the structure is to serve people, life and flow. 
Structure shall never be created in order to be obeyed by the people. But it 
may enable and empower people to step into their full potential and life force.

We as OST community create a structure that continues to allow flow, 
learning, sharing, seeping our understanding: an international email list, 
language specific lists, wosonos, Stammtisch, Facebook group, online calls...

I am grateful that this structure exists otherwise

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Rosa Zubizarreta via OSList

mand and 
> control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact at 
> the point of choice).
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: OSList <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> 
> <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> on behalf of via OSList 
> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:27 AM
> To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
> Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>
> Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
> valuable to me!
>
> Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I 
> am pretty aware of the shadows...
>
> For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
> element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
> structure. Etc.
>
> Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
> imagination.
>
> I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
> tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision 
> making, dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real 
> stuff to me.
>
> I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
> it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of flow 
> with ease and joy.
>
> Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and 
> ease in a meeting.
>
> Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the 
> tomato is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed  
> it can supports the tomato to grow.
>
> The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is 
> growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and 
> development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable 
> flow and healthy growth.
>
> I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease and 
> creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by the 
> 'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those factors 
> as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/ processes I 
> facilitate:
>
> - is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
> - what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these values?
> - what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have a 
> uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super 
> clear and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear 
> honest about our assumptions when we create structure.
> Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our organization, 
> our movement...
> The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order to 
> create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the opportunity 
> to take leadership for inspired action.
> Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people experimenting, 
> sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility and leadership.
>
> Depending on my abilities, resources and assumptions, and 
> consciousness/awareness I create structures as a facilitator. My wish is to 
> design and facilitate meetings where people connect with their passion and 
> take leadership. My aim is to be very clear why I create which structures and 
> I do my best to stay open to learn from the group and adopt the structure  to 
> their needs if needed.
>
> I believe the purpose of the structure is to serve people, life and flow. 
> Structure shall never be created in order to be obeyed by the people. But it 
> may enable and empower people to step into their full potential and life 
> force.
>
> We as OST community create a structure that continues to allow flow, 
> learning, sharing, seeping our understanding: an international email list, 
> language specific lists, wosonos, Stammtisch, Facebook group, online calls...
>
> I am grateful that this structure exists otherwise I could not learn from all 
> your perspectives, insights, questions and sharing.
>
> much Love
> Anna Caroline
>
>
>
> On 03 Oct 2015, at 20:40, Harrison Owen via OSList 
> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org<mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> 
> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:
>
> And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought which 
> has pestered me recently. Goes like this. "Structure is only a figment of our 
> imagination. It is our "take" of reality

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Suzanne Daigle via OSList

Could it be that the structure we need shows up as we need it and
disappears as quickly as it appeared once it has done its thing or when it
has outlived it usefulness?  I value structure in my life though if I focus
on it too much, it does often feel that it becomes a close cousin to those
dreaded words that too often rule my life: control, security and
predictability. And unfortunately then it then crowds out the best of life:
love, connection, hope, promise, gratitude and much more.

Does trust in the process or structure equate to structurelessness? Or is
it more about how much emphasis we place on it before we "act" an "be".

Probably what I love about the 5 OS principles and especially these 2, is
that it keeps me connected and reminds me to let go a bit as it relates to
structure and stuff.

Whatever happens is the right thing
Whoever comes is the right person.

Anyway this is what is coming out of my Mickey Mouse brain tonight (live in
Florida you see), with great affection and a bit of fun to add to the mix
of this discourse.!

Suzanne

Suzanne Daigle
Open Space Facilitator
NuFocus Strategic Group

FL 941-359-8877
Cell: 203-722-2009
www.nufocusgroup.com
s.dai...@nufocusgroup.com
Twitter @Daiglesuz


On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList <
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

> And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought
> which has pestered me recently. Goes like this. “Structure is only a
> figment of our imagination. It is our “take” of reality, a flash frame of
> the passing scene. In our minds it looks solid, even unchanging. But
> actually it is just a momentary view of the ongoing flow.” Or something.
>
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
> *From:* OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Mezick via OSList
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
> *To:* oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
> *Subject:* [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>
>
>
> 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...
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- *The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy
>counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.*
>
>
>- *Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
>as a structureless group. *
>
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- *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.*
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Harold Shinsato via OSList


Hi Suzanne!

Nice interpretation - and maybe Mickey Mouse deserves a bow here.

One of the things I love about our OS Hotline is the wisdom of Skye 
Hirst, who frequently shows up there. She has a lot of experience inside 
the work of Robert S. Hartman, and the hierarchy of values. Structure 
fits in the hierarchy of values, but at a lower order of value. So 
structure is great, but only if it's in service of the highest orders of 
value - which are called "Intrinsic" in Hartman's system.


When we say "Open Space", it seems to work best as a place holder for 
"Spirit", potentially another name for intrinsic values.


Open Space Technology is a structure in service to Open Space.

I'm kind of into how C. Otto Sharmer says it. Instead of "Form follows 
function", he says "Form follows *attention*".


So as you say, Suzanne, structure can appear as we need it. And 
sometimes, when we don't need it. Based on where we individually and 
collectively focus our attention, or where our attention is stuck due to 
the power of habit.


One thing I love most about Open Space Technology - even though it can 
be a difficult role to play - it does authorize some space for those who 
may have managed to get unstuck from a collective habitual structure. 
They can hold a session by themselves, and still contribute to the 
proceedings. And, voila, sometimes just that one person can start 
attracting others out of a non-functioning structure. Or maybe even into 
a new one.


Harold

On 10/5/15 5:24 PM, Suzanne Daigle via OSList wrote:
Could it be that the structure we need shows up as we need it and 
disappears as quickly as it appeared once it has done its thing or 
when it has outlived it usefulness?  I value structure in my life 
though if I focus on it too much, it does often feel that it becomes a 
close cousin to those dreaded words that too often rule my life: 
control, security and predictability. And unfortunately then it then 
crowds out the best of life: love, connection, hope, promise, 
gratitude and much more.


Does trust in the process or structure equate to structurelessness? Or 
is it more about how much emphasis we place on it before we "act" an 
"be".


Probably what I love about the 5 OS principles and especially these 2, 
is that it keeps me connected and reminds me to let go a bit as it 
relates to structure and stuff.


Whatever happens is the right thing
Whoever comes is the right person.

Anyway this is what is coming out of my Mickey Mouse brain tonight 
(live in Florida you see), with great affection and a bit of fun to 
add to the mix of this discourse.!


Suzanne

Suzanne Daigle
Open Space Facilitator
NuFocus Strategic Group

FL 941-359-8877
Cell: 203-722-2009
www.nufocusgroup.com 
s.dai...@nufocusgroup.com 
Twitter @Daiglesuz


On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList 
> wrote:


And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off
thought which has pestered me recently. Goes like this. “Structure
is only a figment of our imagination. It is our “take” of reality,
a flash frame of the passing scene. In our minds it looks solid,
even unchanging. But actually it is just a momentary view of the
ongoing flow.” Or something.

Harrison

*From:*OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org
] *On Behalf Of
*Daniel Mezick via OSList
*Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
*To:* oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

*Subject:* [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

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...

  * /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. /

  * /The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a
healthy counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in
its own right./

  * /Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such
thing as a structureless group. /

  * /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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Harold Shinsato via OSList


Hi Daniel,

As a habitual outsider, I can't say whether or not I felt excluded by 
the Ralph Copleman story or not. For me, it might be a bit like asking a 
fish whether or not he feels wet.


But I will say - I've heard the story of Ralph and "everything is 
moving", and I got value from the story even without knowing the full 
context. And I really wish I had felt excluded by the story when I first 
heard it 7 years ago or so, and had asked about it like you did.


I'm so grateful to you, Daniel, for saying something. And I'm very 
grateful to Harrison for sharing the story, and especially the thoughts 
that it has provoked. And I'm grateful to Ralph, who I never knew, for 
leaving such an enduring legacy with just a few words at a Symposia 
decades ago.


Cheers!
Harold

On 10/5/15 2:50 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList wrote:

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.



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."




Daniel



--
Harold Shinsato
har...@shinsato.com 
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush 
___
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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Anna Caroline Türk via OSList

he 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 
> <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://michaelherman.com/>
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org <http://openspaceworld.org/>
>  
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:47 PM, JL Walker via OSList 
> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org <mailto: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 
> <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". (

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread paul levy via OSList

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 LeadershipAuthor of From
> Conflict to Creative Collaboration <http://www.conflict2creativity.com>*
>
>
> *For more resources and learning opportunities, visitwww.DiaPraxis.com
> <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <
> oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 ide

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList

Greeting Marie, Anna, Dirk, Michael, Rosa, JL, Harrison (...did I miss 
anyone? sorry of I did) ...


 I do like this essay. A lot. 

Thanks for interacting around this provocative essay "The Tyranny of 
Structurelessness."


The essay certainly does challenge some of our most cherished 
assumptions, doesn't it?


The essay is issuing a clear and specific warning about tyranny 
developing in groups that value "structurelessness."


I hold this as a (current) belief, about healthy groups:
/"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. //"/




Reiterating some of the key assertions (provocations?) in the essay, 
"The Tyranny of Structurelessness"...


for a moment, let's pretend the following assertions by the author 
are true.


Assuming these assertions **are** true, what are some of the implications ?


 * Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as
   a structureless group.


 * 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.


 * 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.





On 10/5/15 12:38 PM, Marie Nelson via OSList wrote:

Interesting array of perspectives on structures. I sometimes distinguish 
between content structures (agendas, syllabi that function for command and 
control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact at 
the point of choice).

Marie






From: OSList <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> on behalf of via OSList 
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
valuable to me!

Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I am 
pretty aware of the shadows...

For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
structure. Etc.

Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
imagination.

I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision making, 
dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real stuff to me.

I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of flow with 
ease and joy.

Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and ease 
in a meeting.

Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the tomato 
is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed  it can 
supports the tomato to grow.

The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is 
growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and 
development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable 
flow and healthy growth.

I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease and 
creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by the 
'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those factors 
as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/ processes I 
facilitate:

- is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
- what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these values?
- what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have a 
uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super clear 
and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear honest 
about our assumptions when we create structure.
Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our organization, 
our movement...
The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order to 
create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the opportunity 
to take leadership for inspi

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-05 Thread Marie Nelson via OSList

Interesting array of perspectives on structures. I sometimes distinguish 
between content structures (agendas, syllabi that function for command and 
control) and process structures (that liberate people/learners to interact at 
the point of choice).

Marie






From: OSList <oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org> on behalf of via OSList 
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Harrison Owen; World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
valuable to me!

Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I am 
pretty aware of the shadows...

For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
structure. Etc.

Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
imagination.

I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision making, 
dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real stuff to me.

I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of flow with 
ease and joy.

Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and ease 
in a meeting.

Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the tomato 
is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed  it can 
supports the tomato to grow.

The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is 
growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and 
development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable 
flow and healthy growth.

I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease and 
creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by the 
'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those factors 
as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/ processes I 
facilitate:

- is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
- what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these values?
- what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have a 
uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super clear 
and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear honest 
about our assumptions when we create structure.
Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our organization, 
our movement...
The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order to 
create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the opportunity 
to take leadership for inspired action.
Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people experimenting, 
sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility and leadership.

Depending on my abilities, resources and assumptions, and 
consciousness/awareness I create structures as a facilitator. My wish is to 
design and facilitate meetings where people connect with their passion and take 
leadership. My aim is to be very clear why I create which structures and I do 
my best to stay open to learn from the group and adopt the structure  to their 
needs if needed.

I believe the purpose of the structure is to serve people, life and flow. 
Structure shall never be created in order to be obeyed by the people. But it 
may enable and empower people to step into their full potential and life force.

We as OST community create a structure that continues to allow flow, learning, 
sharing, seeping our understanding: an international email list, language 
specific lists, wosonos, Stammtisch, Facebook group, online calls...

I am grateful that this structure exists otherwise I could not learn from all 
your perspectives, insights, questions and sharing.

much Love
Anna Caroline



On 03 Oct 2015, at 20:40, Harrison Owen via OSList 
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org<mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:

And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought which has 
pestered me recently. Goes like this. "Structure is only a figment of our 
imagination. It is our "take" of reality, a flash frame of the passing scene. 
In our minds it looks solid, even unchanging. But actually it is just a 
momentary view of the ongoing flow." Or something.

Harrison

From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of 
Daniel Mezick via OSList
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org<mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
Subject: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELE

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-04 Thread via OSList

Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very 
valuable to me! 

Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that I am 
pretty aware of the shadows...  

For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is another 
element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda is a 
structure. Etc. 

Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of our 
imagination. 

I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as 
tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision making, 
dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real stuff to me. 

I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure - if 
it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of flow with 
ease and joy. 

Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and ease 
in a meeting. 

Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the tomato 
is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed  it can 
supports the tomato to grow. 

The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is 
growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and 
development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable 
flow and healthy growth. 

I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease and 
creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by the 
'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those factors 
as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/ processes I 
facilitate: 

- is the purpose of the meeting/process clear? 
- what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these values? 
- what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have a 
uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super clear 
and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear honest 
about our assumptions when we create structure. 
Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our organization, 
our movement...
The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order to 
create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the opportunity 
to take leadership for inspired action. 
Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people experimenting, 
sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility and leadership. 

Depending on my abilities, resources and assumptions, and 
consciousness/awareness I create structures as a facilitator. My wish is to 
design and facilitate meetings where people connect with their passion and take 
leadership. My aim is to be very clear why I create which structures and I do 
my best to stay open to learn from the group and adopt the structure  to their 
needs if needed. 

I believe the purpose of the structure is to serve people, life and flow. 
Structure shall never be created in order to be obeyed by the people. But it 
may enable and empower people to step into their full potential and life force. 

We as OST community create a structure that continues to allow flow, learning, 
sharing, seeping our understanding: an international email list, language 
specific lists, wosonos, Stammtisch, Facebook group, online calls...  

I am grateful that this structure exists otherwise I could not learn from all 
your perspectives, insights, questions and sharing. 

much Love 
Anna Caroline 

> On 03 Oct 2015, at 20:40, Harrison Owen via OSList 
>  wrote:
> 
> And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought which 
> has pestered me recently. Goes like this. “Structure is only a figment of our 
> imagination. It is our “take” of reality, a flash frame of the passing scene. 
> In our minds it looks solid, even unchanging. But actually it is just a 
> momentary view of the ongoing flow.” Or something.
>  
> Harrison
>  
> From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of 
> Daniel Mezick via OSList
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
> To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
> Subject: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>  
> 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...
> 
> 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.
> The

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-04 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

i like your tomatoes story, anna.  chris corrigan shared with me years ago
a distinction i think he heard the dalai lama make, noticing the difference
between structures that bound and restrict movement and freedom and those
that support.  they were explained as a closed, grasping hand and an open,
palm-up, offering hand.  i think this lines up with what we've said here
before about letting go of control.

the point of the story i shared earlier, doesn't rest on ralph copleman
himself, though he was important for me and many others.  he might also be
the only person to attend every single OT (organization transformation
symposium, where harrison discovered OS as a practice).  the point was that
in open space it is possible to notice that everything is moving, that if
structures themselves are not imaginary, their solidity is.

it's easy to "imagine" everything as more stuck and solid than it needs to
be, than it might be.  some years ago i translated this into:  "open space"
is fundamentally a decision and a commitment (on the part of sponsors,
hosts, facilitators and other leaders) -- to movement.  it might be worth
adding that it's not about driving or causing movement, but allowing and
supporting it, in the spirit of the open hand above.

this last bit makes it hard to hold a strong opinion or assumptions about
how things are and should be and at the same time offer a genuine
invitation for others to do what they sense is best for themselves.  i
really like what you are sharing here, anna, about how we have to keep
examining and be aware of these two potentials all the while we are
creating and facilitating.

on the real or imagined solidity of structure, i once asked mark pixley
(who shows up here on the list every so often), while shopping for training
program materials in hong kong, about the relationship between China and
Taiwan.  Specifically, because I didn't remember much of the history, I was
wondering how this small island country could talk so tough with such a
large and powerful neighbor.  His answer was just amazing to me:  "Well,
you know... a country is only a country because we say it's a country."

--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 9:27 AM, via OSList 
wrote:

> Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very
> valuable to me!
>
> Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that
> I am pretty aware of the shadows...
>
> For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is
> another element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda
> is a structure. Etc.
>
> Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of
> our imagination.
>
> I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as
> tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision
> making, dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real
> stuff to me.
>
> I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure -
> if it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of
> flow with ease and joy.
>
> Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and
> ease in a meeting.
>
> Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the
> tomato is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed
>  it can supports the tomato to grow.
>
> The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is
> growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and
> development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable
> flow and healthy growth.
>
> I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease
> and creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by
> the 'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those
> factors as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/
> processes I facilitate:
>
> - is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
> - what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these
> values?
> - what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have
> a uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super
> clear and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear
> honest about our assumptions when we create structure.
> Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our
> organization, our movement...
> The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order
> to create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the
> opportunity to take leadership for inspired action.
> Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people
> experimenting, sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility
> and leadership.
>
>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-04 Thread Rosa Zubizarreta via OSList

Yay, Anna Caroline

you speak my heart!

thank you.


*Rosa Zubizarreta*



*Developing Participatory and Co-intelligent LeadershipAuthor of From
Conflict to Creative Collaboration *

*For more resources and learning opportunities, visit**www.DiaPraxis.com
*

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, via OSList 
wrote:

> Dear Daniel, thank you for sharing the synopsis of the essay. Sounds very
> valuable to me!
>
> Rosa, yes I am also a 'green' lover - but living with the assumption that
> I am pretty aware of the shadows...
>
> For me sitting in a circle is a structure. Starting with a break is
> another element of structure. Allowing participants to co-create the agenda
> is a structure. Etc.
>
> Harrison, I don't understand why you say structure is only a figment of
> our imagination.
>
> I believe structure is something very real - even if it's not always as
> tangible as the structure of a house - how we structure time, decision
> making, dialogue, sharing, connecting ... Coffee breaks, all pretty real
> stuff to me.
>
> I believe nobody is obliged to follow a given structure. But structure -
> if it's purposefully designed can enable people to enter into a state of
> flow with ease and joy.
>
> Of course structure is not the only reason why we experience flow, joy and
> ease in a meeting.
>
> Let's take the example of a tomato. The wooden structure that holds the
> tomato is not determining how the tomato grows, but if purposefully placed
>  it can supports the tomato to grow.
>
> The tomato's purpose is not to follow the wooden structure, the tomato is
> growing, and the structure is an invitation to support the growth and
> development. The structure itself is not the flow. The structure can enable
> flow and healthy growth.
>
> I think there are several structural factors that can increase joy, ease
> and creativity to emerge.  I'll name those that come to mind - inspired by
> the 'Deep Essence Tool' of the Genuine Contact program. Let me list those
> factors as questions that help me when I design meeting structures/
> processes I facilitate:
>
> - is the purpose of the meeting/process clear?
> - what are our values? Is the design of the meeting aligned with these
> values?
> - what assumptions do I and my clients have? (Watch out - assumptions have
> a uber impact on the structure) I, you, a group, a leader have to be super
> clear and honest about our assumptions - huge shadow trap - not being clear
> honest about our assumptions when we create structure.
> Now let's find and create a structure for our meeting, for our
> organization, our movement...
> The more purpose, values, assumptions and structures are aligned, in order
> to create a life nurturing environment, the more the people have the
> opportunity to take leadership for inspired action.
> Step by step a story unfolds that is characterized by people
> experimenting, sharing, trying, daring, learning ... Taking responsibility
> and leadership.
>
> Depending on my abilities, resources and assumptions, and
> consciousness/awareness I create structures as a facilitator. My wish is
> to design and facilitate meetings where people connect with their passion
> and take leadership. My aim is to be very clear why I create which
> structures and I do my best to stay open to learn from the group and adopt
> the structure  to their needs if needed.
>
> I believe the purpose of the structure is to serve people, life and flow.
> Structure shall never be created in order to be obeyed by the people. But
> it may enable and empower people to step into their full potential and life
> force.
>
> We as OST community create a structure that continues to allow flow,
> learning, sharing, seeping our understanding: an international email list,
> language specific lists, wosonos, Stammtisch, Facebook group, online
> calls...
>
> I am grateful that this structure exists otherwise I could not learn from
> all your perspectives, insights, questions and sharing.
>
> much Love
> Anna Caroline
>
>
>
> On 03 Oct 2015, at 20:40, Harrison Owen via OSList <
> oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
> And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought
> which has pestered me recently. Goes like this. “Structure is only a
> figment of our imagination. It is our “take” of reality, a flash frame of
> the passing scene. In our minds it looks solid, even unchanging. But
> actually it is just a momentary view of the ongoing flow.” Or something.
>
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
> *From:* OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Mezick
> via OSList
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
> *To:* oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
> *Subject:* [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness
>
>
>
> THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS
> by Jo Freeman aka Joreen
>
> I find this essay extremely interesting. I

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-04 Thread Harrison Owen via OSList


 

 

 

 

 

 

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  <http://www.conflict2creativity.com> 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...

*   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. 

*   The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy 
counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.

*   Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a 
structureless group. 

*   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. 

*   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.



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 <tel:203%20915%207248>

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-03 Thread Rosa Zubizarreta via OSList

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 LeadershipAuthor 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...
>
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- *The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy
>counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.*
>
>
>- *Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
>as a structureless group. *
>
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- * 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.*
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-03 Thread JL Walker via OSList

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  <http://www.conflict2creativity.com> 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...

*   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. 

*   The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy 
counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.

*   Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a 
structureless group. 

*   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. 

*   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.



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 <tel:203%20915%207248> 


___
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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-03 Thread Harrison Owen via OSList

And just to churn the pot a bit open some space??? An off thought which
has pestered me recently. Goes like this. "Structure is only a figment of
our imagination. It is our "take" of reality, a flash frame of the passing
scene. In our minds it looks solid, even unchanging. But actually it is just
a momentary view of the ongoing flow." Or something.

 

Harrison

 

From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of
Daniel Mezick via OSList
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:26 AM
To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Subject: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

 

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...

*   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. 

*   The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy
counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.

*   Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as
a structureless group. 

*   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. 

*   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.



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

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-03 Thread Michael Herman via OSList

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 LeadershipAuthor of From
> Conflict to Creative Collaboration <http://www.conflict2creativity.com>*
>
>
> *For more resources and learning opportunities, visitwww.DiaPraxis.com
> <http://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...
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- *The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy
>counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in its own right.*
>
>
>- *Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
>as a structureless group. *
>
>
>- *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. *
>
>
>- *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.*
>
>
>
> Just in case you have not yet e

Re: [OSList] The Tyranny of Structurelessness

2015-10-03 Thread Daniel Mezick via OSList


Michael,

I'm sorry. I have absolutely no context to understand this story. And it 
sounds so interesting. So of course I want to understand it.


I wonder if you might be willing to provide some context. For example: 
when this story takes place, where this place actually is, who else is 
there besides you and Harrison and Ralph Copleman, what the actual event 
is all about, etc.


I'm utterly clueless: I have no idea who Ralph Copleman is.

Daniel

On 10/3/15 6:31 PM, Michael Herman wrote:
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 
<mailto: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
<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*
<http://www.conflict2creativity.com>/

/For more resources and learning opportunities, visit
*www.DiaPraxis.com <http://www.DiaPraxis.com>*/

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto: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...

  * /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. /

  * /The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a
healthy counter to those tendencies, to becoming a goddess in
its own right./

  * /Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such
thing as a structureless group. /

  * /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. /

  * /This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea
of "structurelessness" does not preve

49 matches

Mail list logo