Another discussion...(was: Part three OST with children and families)

[Artur F. Silva]

At 10:04 27-01-2001 -0500, Harrison Owen wrote (in the end):

>But that might be food for another discussion.

Why not? I would like to profit from your suggestion to ask for the
claification of some points.

>Chris, I agree. And it is also a blinding flash of the obvious. In this
>case, the community and its members suddenly becomes aware of what they
>truly are. This may be a new insight, but it is not a new reality.

Are you sure about that? I mean: in what concerns human beings and
society, a "new insight" is not by itself a "new social reality". What
about myths, culture, religions? Or even OST?

>They always were what they are. (duhhh) I think there is something else
>here as well. In the better, more enlightened parts of medicine, it has
>long been known that the body is its own best healer. The role of medicine
>is to optimize the possibility of the body healing itself. But at the end
>of the day, should the body refuse the mission -- for whatever reason --
>that is pretty much the end of the line. I would like to generalize from
>this accepted principle to the larger body of which we are all a part,
>known variously as a "system," "organization," or "community," and say
>essentially the same thing. The system is its own best healer, and the
>best we can do is optimize the possibilities that the system will heal
>itself. I think that is what we do when we open space.

I completely agree with you. But you mentioned that sometimes the
body will regain health and some others he will "refuse". Let me call
this refusal "body health disability".

I argue that there are also "organizational disabilities" (or organisational
"learning disbilities"), resulting mostly from is owners/managers/consultants
trying to manage/control instead of leading, treating organizations like
machines, with lack of respect for humans or persons (they call them
"personnel", by the way). This "control" can be evident or covert (or
even "covert and covert again") but I don't think the last one is better
than the
first one. On the contrary...

And I argue that there are also community disabilities, and social
disabilities,
namely because power forces promote these disabilities, for their own
interest or presuming they are serving some machine-like divine operating
plan.


>And there is more. A (or more likely -- THE) fundamental process in any
>system which enables its healing (as also all other processes of the
>system) is self-organization. This process is at once a marvel of
>simplicity and a maelstrom of complexity -- and it works without our help,
>and often in spite of our best efforts to be of assistance. Now for a
>small leap. Healing and well functioning self-organization add up to the
>same thing.

Agreed.

>Or put a different way, a self-organizing system is always in the process
>of healing itself.

Is it? As you recognized that sometimes body "refuses" (or his unable)
to heal himself, and needs help, I would expect you to recognize
that there is a diference between a FREE and then "well funcioning
self-organization" and a constrained, limited organization that, of course,
is also "self organized" - but not "well funcioning".

To allow for free (or almost free) "well functioning self-organization"
that is the role of OST (and maybe some other "open ways"). And the same
is true about society at general - I don't think that it is now "well
funcioning",
neither that it has been in the last 20 centuries at least... So I would
like to
have a "social technology" that would allow for society at large a similar
process of "resuming well functioning self-organization". I would think that
this methodology would supress ALL power constrains that have been in
place until now (the ones working at a social level and the ones working
inside the minds of humans...)


>A word for this is adaption. I believe that what happens in Open Space is
>that the process of self-organization is kick-started so that what should
>be happening naturally has a chance to start again.

Exactly: kick-started  so that what should be happening naturally (but is
not, due to many constraints) has a chance to start again.

>And it may or may not.

Exactly!  See what I meant some time ago?

>That is for the system (body) to decide. The gift of Open Space is that we
>have the chance to see and experience what we naturally are -- a well
>functioning self-organization system.

Why not:

"The gift of Open Space is that we have the chance to see and experience
what we naturally COULD BE -- a well functioning self-organization system" ?

>A consequence of all of the above is simply that the Open Space
>Organization is nothing new. It is already there. This, of course,
>precludes the possibility that we might decide to become an Open Space
>Organization, or worse yet to create an Open Space Organization. We can,
>however, consciously provide the space/time for what is natural to occur
>naturally. I think this is what we do.

I agree with that. It is already there, but as a potencial, and not
as action. Indeed, I think in our body, mind, organizations and
social life what COULD BE NATURAL is rarelly so, due to
inoumerous constraints - and due to models from the past, that
were eventually acceptable at the time, and are not any more but are
still in action.

Similarly, even if the majority of children have NATURAL (genetical)
capacity to learn, the social, economical, cultural, familiar conditions
conduct a lot of them to give evidence of learning disabilities. And some
others to create, early in life, limitations, constaints and inculcated
mental models that frequently they are not even awere of (or think
about them as "values") that they will not be able to bypass. The
same constrained capacity for self-organization is true, I think, about
organizations, societies and earth itself.

>A final thought. Concentration on the details, the bits and pieces of
>organization (structure, controls, givens etc) may be interesting and to
>some degree useful -- but not if that concentration blinds us to the
>central reality (I think), which is the process itself. As facilitators
>(or whatever it is that we call ourselves) we are only and ultimately
>witnesses to the process -- witnesses to the flow. The details -- before
>during and after -- will pretty much take care of themselves. -- or
>not.  And witnessing, of course is not simply to assume the role of a
>passive bystander. There is a lot more here than immediately meets the eye
>-- as we all know.

Agreed again. It is about that "a lot more here than immediately meets
the eye" that I have tried to put some doubts. If you would be so kind
to explain me if and where I am wrong it would be helpfull.

Because from what I have said - assuming it is correct - I can devellop
a lot of other consequences. "But that might be food for another discussion".

Regards

Artur

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu
Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

===========================================================
OSLIST at EGROUPS.COM
To subscribe,
1.  Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2.  Sign up -- provide an email address,
    and choose a login ID and password
3.  Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions

To unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at egroups.com:
1.  Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2.  Sign in and Proceed