self organizing?complex adaptive system?chaos theory?

[Virginia]

Birgitt
Thank you for opening this discussion - I am enthralled by both your words
and questions and Jay's answer(s).
I am still chewing on a response!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Vogt <JayWV at aol.com>
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: self organizing?complex adaptive system?chaos theory?


>In a message dated 2/28/99 6:19:51 PM, birgitt at worldchat.com wrote:
>
><<It seems to me that when we speak of a self organizing system in relation
to
>
>OS, that there is incongruity here. By the very fact that we have "opened
>
>the space", we have introduced something that "bounds" the self organizing
>
>system within a confine of some basics (basic laws so to speak). So, I
would
>
>think that this is no longer  a self organizing system but a group of
people
>
>that self organize within a set framework, albeit a minimal framework. >>
>
>I welcome this query, Birgitt, and it is a difficult one.  I will let
others
>answer other parts of your note.  I resolve the incongruity you mention
above
>by seeing the basic laws of open space (the one law and the four
principles)
>as essential to self-organization, not antithetical to it.
>
>Forgive me if I quote the poet David Whyte, in The Heart Aroused, at some
>length.
>
>"The new science of complexity, ironically, looks this question of
simplicity
>directly in the eye.  Why should it be that simple elements following
simple
>rules will often engage in the most outrageous, hard-to-predict patterns?
And
>how is it that simple elements will, as if guided by an unseen hand,
>spontaneously arrange themselves into astonishingly complex structures like
>mountain range, rain forests, planets, supernovas, or detailed three
hundred
>page reports?"
>
>He goes on to link this question to human organizations, and passions.
>
>"The basic elemental building blocks of human aspiration are the elements
of
>individual imagination, those particular images to which a person's inner
>longings and desires naturally turn to express themselves.  Previously, we
>have left this life of the imagination to poets and artists.  What would it
be
>like to grow organizations whose complexity arises from the
cross-pollinating
>visions and imaginations of their constituent members?"
>
>He goes on to say:
>
>"All the evidence from the science of complexity says that given certain
clear
>parameters [my emphasis], 
communities or teams will become
self-organizing.
>They will be attracted to certain flowing states of organization natural to
>the people who make them up.  In chaos theory, these flowing states are
>poetically called strange attractors."
>
>I maintain that what people experience as we open space begins with the
>momentary disorientation of apparent chaos as we give up control, and
evolves
>into a growing exhileration with emerging patterns as we discover order.
The
>"unseen hand, spontaneously arranging" this order is the phenomenon chaos
>theory calls the strange attractor.
>
>Whyte adds, as an example, "A strong vision and purpose acts as a kind of
>strange attractor, allowing individual creativity while acting as a natural
>constraint to behavior that is detrimental to the team."  We facilitate the
>emergence of these beautiful and powerful patterns.  If they are already
quite
>present, open space allows them to be more so.  If they are buried, open
space
>allows them to emerge.  That is why we love open space and why people are
so
>drawn to it.
>
>But how do we actually make it happen?  According to the earlier quotation,
we
>must have "certain clear parameters."  These clear parameters, or simple
>rules, are essential to the process of self-organization.  I am referring
of
>course to the one law and the four principles.
>
>Whyte quotes Physicist Steven Wolfram:
>"Whenever you looked at very complicated systems in physics or biology
you
>generally find that the basic components and the basic laws are quite
simple;
>the complexity arises because you have a great many of these simple
components
>interacting simultaneously."
>
>So the one law and four principles are Wolfram's "basic laws," which
Harrison
>has, in his intuitive wisdom, discovered.  The "complexity" which arises is
>the interplay of so many human hearts and minds "interacting
simultaneously."
>The emerging patterns we welcome are those of the community's seen or
unseen
>"strange attractors".
>
>One final example.  Whyte writes about the poet Samuel Coleridge, and his
>fascination with the fluid flocking behavior of starlings.  He cites a
>successful attempt by science to simulate this complex behavior.  Once
again
>in the example we see these central forces - simple rules, complex
individual
>behavior, and the emergence of patterns as strange attractors come in play.
>
>"A startingly clear simulation of this phenomenon was put together by a
>computer scientist, Craig Reynolds, in 1987.  Humorously termed, 'boids,'
>Reynold's program attempted to understand, like Coleridge, the flocking
>abilities of wild birds.  The fascinating thing about Reynold's program is
>that not once did he include the overarching command, 'Stay together at all
>costs.'
>
>Reynold's program depicted a large collection of individual birds, or
boids,
>attempting to fly around a screen full of walls and obstacles.  Each boid
>followed three simple rules of behavior;  M. Mitchell Waldrop, in his book
>Complexity, summarizes the three simple behaviors that each boid was
>programmed to follow.
>
>1. It tried to maintain a minimum distance from other objects in the
>environment, including other boids.
>2. It tried to match velocities with boids in its neighborhood.
>3. It tried to move toward the perceived center of mass of boids in its
>neighborhood.
>
>Waldrop goes on to say:
>
>'What was striking about these rules was that none of them said form a
flock.
>Quite the opposite: the rules were entirely local, referring only to what
an
>individual boid could see and do in its own vicinity.  If a flock was going
to
>form at all, it was going to have to do so from the bottom up, as an
emergent
>phenomenon.  And yet flocks did form, every time.   Reynolds could start
his
>simulation with boids scattered around his computer screen completely at
>random, and they would spontaneously collect themselves into a flock that
>could fly around obstacles in a very fluid and natural manner.  Sometimes
the
>flock would even break into subflocks that flowed around both sides of an
>obstacle, rejoining it on the other sides as if the boids had planned it
all
>along.  In one of the runs, in fact, a boid accidentally hit a pole,
fluttered
>around for a moment as though stunned and lost, then darted forward to
rejoin
>the flock as it moved on.'
>
>What then, in this example, and in open space, makes it all "flow"?
>• Simple rules (3), just as we have one law and four principles
>• Random, local action of individuals (boids), just as we have participants
>acting in random, individualistic ways, while governed by "certain clear
>parameters."
>• The emergent pattern of "flocks," a strange attractor at work, just as we
>surface the emergent patterns of the communities we work with.
>
>Our few "basic laws" are what allow self-organization to flourish!
>
>Best, Jay

>From  Mon Mar  1 21:07:35 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.MAR.1999.210735.0500.>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:07:35 -0500
Reply-To: eewing at inforamp.net
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Esther Ewing <eewing at inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Open Space facilitators
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990301171612.009c3a80 at tmn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Harrison:
I love that you are not afraid to hug. And when we act out of instincts and when we are being authentic, it shouldn't be misunderstood. That is not to say that it doesn't happen. However, the Canadian bankers that I have met are great - and I've hugged more than a few!!

Esther, a Canadian friend!

-----Original Message-----
From:   OSLIST [SMTP:OSLIST at listserv.idbsu.edu] On Behalf Of owen
Sent:   Monday, March 01, 1999 5:43 PM
To:     OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject:        Re: Open Space facilitators

I find this discussion to be wonderful -- and best of all there probably is no one right answer...
****************************
Joe said ......
>I want to reinterate that I am sure that in some or many cases the effect of
>changing roles would be neutral at worst. However, informal as it is, this is
>a discussion of professional standards. This is no longer Harrison and a few
>others doing magical work.  It is about many people who adhere to very
>differing professional codes or none at all.  I have to say that think it is
>dangerous, even irresponsible to suggest that there should be no standard of
>practice regarding this question. Joe
************************************
The question of professional standards (the standards of a professional) is not a light one. I am quite clear that for PRACTICAL reasons I do not do sessions in an environment where I am a stranger. And for many of the same practical reasons, I do not intervene in anybody else's session either to contribute or to make process suggestions. (Folks pretty well do it on their own, and in the process of figuring things out they only get stronger.) But would I go so far as to say that I SHOULD never intervene, offer a session, or contribute to one -- and I think the answer is no. It all depends.
        I have had situations (very rare) where somebody basically "freaked out" with all the freedom of Open Space. Some people cannot take Freedom Shock. It makes them very nervous and quite dysfunctional. In such a case, I did what came quite naturally. I held them until they  could find the ground again -- a good hug does wonders. But it has its risks. Was I going to be hauled up on charges of sexual harrassment? Possibly, but it seemed the humane thing to do. And frankly I responded quite instinctually, and certainly before a lengthy thought process could kick in.
        I guess that might be the pivotal question for me -- what is the humane thing to do? And corollary to that -- am I being authentic in my response? If the drive is ego (somebody else was talking about this) the notion of authenticity goes out the window. Anyhow, I can think of some "safe" suggestions for professional behavior -- like be careful of those hugs. But the only problem is that hugging seems to be endemic to Open Space. I have even seen Canadian Bankers do it (Sorry to my financial friends north of our border) -- Was I going to stand there and say "I don't hug" -- Anybody who knows me would know THAT  was a bald face lie.

So I hear Joe's request for Professional Standards (no committees please!) but at the end of the day I have to ask what is humane, what is authentic -- and for the rest -- throw caution to the winds.  Whoever said Open Space was without risk?

Harrison

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854   USA
301-469-9269 (phone)
301-983-9314 (fax)
email owen at tmn.com
Website <http://www.tmn.com/~owen>
Open Space Institute website
<http://www.tmn.com/openspace>