Moving Open Space without closing it . . .

[Artur F. Silva]

At 23:18 04-10-2001, Harrison Owen wrote:

>It is certainly quite possible to Open Space and never mention either the
>4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it will work quite well. The
>reason, I think, is that both are simply an acknowledgment of what was
>going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles emerged NOT as prescriptions
>of expected behavior, but rather as simple observations of what seemed to
>be going on. The Right people showed up, work was focused in the Now with
>little regard for what might have been or should have been -- It always
>started when it was the right time -- and of course, it was definitely
>over when it was over. The only value in announcing the principles (or
>perhaps a value) is that doing so takes all the guilt out. And misplaced
>guilt is a waste of time and energy. As for The Law of Two Feet, I think
>this is really critical to effectively operating in Open Space (any
>self-organizing system) --- but again, folks will do it anyhow.
>Unfortunately they don't use their two feet -- they just let their minds
>and hearts wander when they are no longer interested. All the Law says if
>follow your passion (interest) but responsibly.

I understand your point, Harrison, but I don't agree with you completely.
And for me, in this moment, it is important to try to understand the role
of the "principles" - if any.

Please note I don't want to discuss with you - I will have to explain my
position, so that you can understand it and comment on it. And with
time maybe we can try to reach some sort of agreement.

So first let me state where we are - as far as I understand - in
agreement. And that is in the role of the circle, board, market,
theme and law. But also other preconditions that at clearly stated
in the "Guide" -- namely, the theme is correctly formulated, and is of
real concern; the CORRECT people are invited (but not obliged to
came) by the Sponsor WITH THE HELP from the Facilitator,
etc.

IN THOSE CONDITIONS, "what happens is what should" . But if the
bad theme was selected, or if an incorrect group was invited, than what
happens is NOT what should, but what the sponsor managed some
people to believe that "should". He or She is manipulating the group
so that it seems that the Space is Open - but it was "initially
constrained". That can be particularly bad when the sponsor
is also the main facilitator, as he or she can honestly believe that
the constraints he or she is "opening the space", but be wrong and
being closing it.

So when you write:

>It is certainly quite possible to Open Space and never mention either the
>4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it will work quite well. The
>reason, I think, is that both are simply an acknowledgment of what was
>going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles emerged NOT as prescriptions
>of expected behavior, but rather as simple observations of what seemed to
>be going on. The Right people showed up, work was focused (...)


"What was going to happen anyhow" means "what"? What was going
to happen anyhow, within an OST event? Or within ANY type of meeting?
Or even within any type of event - and then, and only then, would the
principles qualify as "Laws of Spirit" (or Nature, or...).

I think that in "normal meetings" and "regular organizations" and
"normal social-economical-political situations" NO ONE IS IN CHARGE but
there are relations and conditions of power, influence, etc that make that
those systems ARE NOT self-organizing systems. They have constraints
(power constraints, ideological constraints, economical interests, etc) that
make them "constrained systems".

(and some people call those "constraints" the "givens" and include the word as
part of OST terminology even if don't remember to see the word in any of your
books, and I think it is in contradiction with OST).

Indeed the way I see OST is that, for the duration of the meeting, we try to
stop those constraints, OPENING THE SPACE for self-organization. And
then, and only then, will happen what "should" happen, according with the
self-organization of open complex systems. (Complex means also that the
required complexity and diversity was invited to the meeting, in conditions
(including economical ones) that make possible to ALL of them to appear
if they wanted to).

Now in what concerns other principles like "when it starts is the right time".
I think that you honestly think that this is what happens all the time. But you
and I both have been in many Congresses and know what that mean. And
what is astonishing in open space meetings is that (except for butterflies
and bumblebees) the scheduled time is quite precisely respected (and much
more that in any other meetings). So maybe the real consequence of stating
that principle (added with the other preconditions) is to obtain an effective
respect of the schedule ;-)

That relates with your other point:

>The only value in announcing the principles (or perhaps a value) is that
>doing so takes all the guilt out. And misplaced guilt is a waste of time
>and energy.

It is not only a waste; guilt inhibits learning and creativity. So the "only
value" is probably a very important feature of OST. But he rules on time
are, IMHO, sugestions, not principles, much less "immutable principles".

I will be back Sunday evening. You will have time to think about this ;-)

Warm regards and a nice week end to all.

Artur




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011005/dab20263/attachment-0017.htm>