Whatever happens... (was: Dear OSLIST)

Sat Jan 13 13:05:56 PST 2001

Hello All,

In reading the discussion about "Whatever happens is the only thing that
could have" I think that there may be a point that we are overlooking.  In
essence, the statement is true.  We can't change the past, and there is no
use in looking back and wishing that we could have.  This gives people the
opportunity to recognize that what has happened has happened and that it is
OK.  But I think that it places an incredible amount of responsibility on
people, not that it takes away our free will or responsibility.  What it
says to me is that whatever happens is the only thing that could have and
that I, or we as the case may be, made the choices and decisions that led us
to what happened.  And that the choices we are going to make are going to
lead to future actions.

I think that the laws and principles are open to interpretation.  It is up
to us to interpret them in a way that works for us.  And if you feel that
you need to change the wording in order to find peace within yourself about
it that you should be able to do so freely.  But at the same time, there
does need to be structure and the law and principle seem to work pretty
well, based on what I've seen :).

Rachel Bolton

-----Original Message-----
From: Artur F. Silva <artsilva at mail.eunet.pt>
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Date: January 10, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Whatever happens... (was: Dear OSLIST)

>At 12:57 10-01-2001 +0100, Christoph J.W. Schmees wrote:
>
>
>>>... Stuff happens and whatever
>>>happens is the only thing that could!
>>
>>(So you deny the free will, and hence any responsibility of man? :-)
>
>I think Christoph ir right, and we tend to use the above "principle" in
>a too broader sense that really denies free will and responsability.
>
>I have discussed this already in private mails with Harrison, so what I am
>saying is not new to him ;-)
>
>When I first red his guide  I understood that OST works (and have always
>worked) with the 4 principles and 1 Law. But are all of them necessary?
>Can we us the rule "less is more" to supress some of them?
>Have they the correct "wording"? Can we replace some of them by
>others that will have a similar effect?
>
>What I think is essential, because it suspends the "business as usual"
>model, is the law of two feet (and of course the circle, the boletim board
>and the market place). If anyone can post any issue, if no one is
>obliged to be anywhere - and can always leave - than the pre-conditions
>for a change are there. This rules suspend previous organizational
>rules and "unfreezes" the previous situation. They allow for chaos and
>self-organization to both emerge. So why do we need the 4
>principles, except because the facilitator fells confortable with them, as
>they have always worked?
>
> From Harrison OST User Guide, I understood the so-called "principles"
>more as "suggestions", or "guidelines", really as "metaphors". Quoting
>Harrison's words: "there are four principles and one law. They are
important
>to the Open Space process, BUT NEVER TO BE TAKEN WITH TOTAL
>SERIOUSNESS"... "(...) I present the principles IN AN OFFHANDED WAY,
>as SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE MIGHT FIND HELPFUL TO KEEP IN
>MIND" (page 95).
>
>Presented this way, I can understand the principles, even if I would
>prefer to call them (more modestly) "suggestions" and if I would prefer
>to make some small modifications.
>
>But after that, I saw them presented in a formal way as principles of OST
or,
>even, as principles of all reality. And I don't think that I can accept
>that enlarged
>conception.
>
>Let's examine them, and see if they are really needed and applied in OST.
>
>THE LAW OF TWO FEET
>
>Sure this is a "law" or "principle" that is fundamental. Even if there are
>limits to is application (due to previous habits) it must be stressed as a
>target, as a goal to try to keep the open space really open, because of
>the reasons i mentioned already.
>
>WHENEVER IT STARTS IS THE RIGHT TIME
>
>Due to the strict calendar of the group sessions and to the need to respect
>other sessions, sessions begin when the convenor so decides,
>and that is normally 0-15 minutes after schedule. As in any other meetings.
>Maybe we are even more at schedule than in other meetings due to
>the self-organising and mutual respect that emerges. If the idea is to
>replace a pseudo control that never really happens and obtain a
>self-organised schedule, I have nothing to object.
>
>WHEN IT'S OVER, IT'S OVER
>
>Idem. But this principle has other advantages. For instance: suspend the
>meeting before schedule if "it's over"; or allow for some participants to
>continue after schedule if it is needed.
>
>WHOEVER COMES IS THE RIGHT PEOPLE
>
>Chapter 10 of the Tales from Open Space is one of my favourites.
>It is not evangelist (or marketing oriented) as some others. It shows
>that sometimes OS works - and sometimes doesn't. And it doesn't work
>in some cases because the preparation was bad or the right people
>didn't came.
>
>I would prefer the following "version" that also allows for the creation
>of the same spirit: "assuming a good preparation, whoever comes is
>the people we can count on" (to solve the issue or theme, or...)
>
>WHATEVER HAPPENS IS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE
>
>I think this "principle" is wrong. If it says "whatever happens is the only
>thing
>that happens" it is a truism and I agree with it. It states that we shall
not
>discuss too much what could happen, but has not. With the standard
>version it contradicts personal responsibility. Indeed it promotes
>irresponsibility: have I been rude to someone? have I presented a wrong
>position and for some reason it was adopted? It doesn't matter - It was
>"the only thing that could have".
>
>In a text I recently wrote to explain "OS fundamentals in Portuguese", I
>referred to this principle in the following terms:
>
>«We need to focus our attention on the future and not on the past, and
>accept, here and now, that different opinions are accepted, that the group
>wants to work based on all contributions in order to get the best
solutions.
>So, in the conditions created by the choosen theme and the participants
>available, whatever happens must be accepted and used to obtain the best
>possible solution. This is what Harrison formulates in the following words:
>"Whatever happens..."»
>
>With this version I feel much more confortable. It doesn't contradict
>responsability
>and free will.
>
>What do the others out there think about this? (I hope you do not think
>that this is
>an heresy :-((
>
>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

*
*
==========================================================
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