Law of what?

Wed Apr 5 13:16:58 PDT 2000

THANK YOU CHRIS -
YOUR KIND OF WIT IS REALLY DELIGHTFUL!

Chris Corrigan's original message:
> The International OS Committee Responsible for Reviewing Grammer and
> Other Oversights has held an emergency meeting of the Oversights
> subcommittee to deal with the issue of the alternate name of the Law of
> Two Feet/Mobility....
>
> The Oversights subcommittee met in Open Space around the theme "How can
> we encompass movement and pith in an inclusive Law?"
>
> Several discussion groups were convened, with instructions to obey the
> Law that Moves You (carefully worded so as not to prejudice the outcome
> of the discussions).  Participants were acutely aware throughout the day
> of how they were flitting around the room.  Some walked, some rolled,
> some somersaulted.  Some of those dressed as wizards even managed to
> teleport from group to group.
>
> Initially it seemed that there was consensus around the following
> points:
>
> 1.    Language matters, even if it doesn't matter
> 2.    People move.
> 3.    People move using two of something (except for the one participant
> who insisted on leaping around on a pogo stick)
> 4.    It's the Law.
>
> In the end several ideas came forward, notably:
>
> The Law of Operative Limbs
> The Law of Dual Mobility Devices
> The Law of Bimodal Transportation
> The Law of Two Feet, Their Substitutes and Representatives
> The Law of Six Feet and Two Wings (a concession to the fact that despite
> everything, bees have two wings and six feet, and rarely walk anywhere
> -- this one was deemed not very practical)
> The Law of Pith and Substance Regarding the Mechanics of Movement
> The Law of Unassisted Mobility and Free Will
> The Law of the Technology of Movement
> The Law of Moving Tools
> The Law of Tooling Movement
> The Law of Non-Stationary Participation Using Any Means Necessary
>
> In the end, the only consensus that could be arrived at was that regular
> movements are good for you.
>
> This single recommendation will be forwarded to the International OS
> Committee
> Responsible for Reviewing Grammer and Other Oversights for review at
> their annual meeting coinciding with OSonOS in Berlin.
>
> CJC
>
> --
> CHRIS CORRIGAN
> 108-1035 Pacific Street
> Vancouver BC
> V6E 4G7
>
> Phone: 604.683.3080
> Fax: 604.683-3036

*******************************************************
Rainer Bosselmann & Projekt-Partner
Psychodrama & Supervision, Coaching & Großgruppen
0641-47646(Tel) -48498(Fax) -4000740(ÄPBS)
http://home.t-online.de/home/Rainer.Bosselmann

>From  Wed Apr  5 17:40:19 2000
Message-Id: <WED.5.APR.2000.174019.0400.>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:40:19 -0400
Reply-To: elf at paragonevents.com
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: "Elisabeth M. La Fontaine, CMP" <elf at paragonevents.com>
Subject: Re: Law of what?... and another self-introduction
In-Reply-To: <004b01bf9f3b$82cb1f60$10ef07c3 at net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi! My name is Elisabeth La Fontaine and after reading Philip Joseph's
comments, I am invoking The Law of Two Feet and jumping right in. I've just
completed Open Space Training with Birgitt Williams and, like Philip,  have
been "lurking" in the background like a voyeur!

Now I'm ready to come out and join the discussion. As a professional meeting
planner who has constantly to think of people with Special Requirements, The
Law of Mobility may be politically correct. However in the context of Open
Space I really like The Law of Two Feet - surely we are all sensitive enough
to use the language that is most appropriate to any given group to make
everyone feel welcome to move at will in any way that is appropriate for
them?

As an Open Space novice, my only question is -  Are we obliged to use Law of
Mobility?

Thanks,
Elisabeth M. La Fontaine
The Paragon Group Inc.
Toronto
elf at paragonevents.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU]On Behalf Of Philip
> Joseph
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2000 4:12 PM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Law of what?... and a self-introduction
>
>
> Hi.  My name is Philip Joseph. I've been following this listserv from here
> in the UK since doing an OpenSpace training with Harrison about 18 months
> ago.  I'd like to throw something into the pot here, so thank you
> Maggie for
> inspiring me and giving me a reason to unlurk.  Thank you also to
> all of you
> who contribute here, for your wisdom, openness, and passion.  I have found
> comfort and challenge for my own practice in this community since I joined
> it, at the beginning of a process which lead to me leaving a Big 5
> consulting practice and going freelance a couple of months ago -
> the "law of
> what" in action.
>
> I'm feeling surprised at the strength of my resistance to a "law of
> mobility".  Exploring that, I discover that mobility is pretty
> peripheral to
> what the law of two feet (under that title) means to me.  My take is that
> the law is about personal responsibility.  Being where you need to be is
> about more than physical presence, absence and movement.  I guess I 'm
> saying in different words what Ralph said - "mobility" 'has no emotional
> guts'. Or at least, not the same emotional guts that the Law is about (to
> me, obviously).  And, yes, pragmatically, in a particular openspace people
> live that value (of self-responsibility) through movement, and
> that message
> also needs to be heard.  But I wasn't drawn to OpenSpace because it's a
> great way to facilitate loads of people - I got hooked in MY guts because
> it's the way I wish to live in the world.  And I can't see "The Law of
> Mobility" as part of that.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maggie Shreve <Magshreve at aol.com>
> To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Law of what?
>
>
> > Actually, I started using the law of mobility when I first encountered
> Open
> > Space with Harrison in Baltimore at the ODN conference -- when was that?
> > Like 1994?
> >
> > I've worked with people who have significant disabilities for
> 25 years and
> I
> > knew, immediately, that law of 2 feet would offend
> them....perhaps to the
> > extent that people in wheelchairs or without legs would not
> participate in
> > Open Space.  So, language is important -- but for different people at
> > different times and different reasons.  (And someday I'll tell you about
> the
> > Open Space Hugh Huntington did in Washington where we struggled mightily
> to
> > accommodate all the people with hearing disabilities who needed
> microphone
> > access in a ballroom setting...NOT good.)
> >
> > Frankly, I was thrilled to see that the law of mobility has kinda stuck
> > around.
> >
> > Maggie Shreve
> > Magshreve at aol.com
> >
>