Some reflections on OST, Bin Laden, etc.

Harrison Owen owenhh at mindspring.com
Thu Oct 18 07:50:34 PDT 2001


At 12:35 AM 10/18/01 +0100, Artur wrote:
>4.2 the main point I think that must be reviewed is the principle "whatever
>happens is the only thing that should". Applied generally it includes
>one word that is self-contradictory. The word "should" presupposes that
>a special order should occur on a chaos situation and that is never true.
>A complex situation, an open system, can have many "strange atractors"
>it is by chance that one is followed and not others.

Actually -- as Winston points out -- the word is could not "Should." Rather
different, I think. There is no value judgement here -- just a simple
recognition of what is.

>5.5. Hence, organizations and countries live in constrained situations, and
>at the social level the self-organization of Open systems rarely apply,
>because
>we face closed or constrained systems.
>
>6. So, for me, Open Space and/or OST happen only in situations where
>those "normal" constraints are removed or circunvened - or where constraints
>are accepted as constrains to deal with, and not as "givens" to please the
>sponsors.

Constraints are definitely with us -- including the force of gravity, The
laws of thermodynamics, the speed of light -- none of which prevent the
process of self-organization, but rather set the context. In organizations
of all sorts (businesses, countries etc) there are also constraints, but I
suggest they do not stop (prevent) the process of self-organization either
-- merely set the context. So when the policies of a business prevent the
performance of a task, we create "work-arounds." When you get a lot of
"work arounds" we used to talk about "the informal organization" -- which
for me is but a code name (alternative name) for the self-organization.
Interestingly enough it was (is?) the job of management to curtail the
informal organization. Fortunately, that never quite happens, and when it
does, the organization typically dies. When I look at an organization in
terms of how it actually does business, relative to how it says it does
business, I come to the interesting conclusion that if we actually did
business the way we say we do business -- we would be out of business.

Which brings me to the whole notion of a "closed system."  Such a system
never existed. The notion was first generated in a laboratory environment
in an effort to control variables in an experiment. But all good scientists
knew this was an academic fiction, useful in the moment, but never to be
take too seriously. Something always gets through. It is just hoped that
whatever breaks through will be so minimal as to fall below the level of
noticeable effect. In short it can be effectively ignored. And when you
can't ignore it -- you have to re-design the experiment.

Back in the early part of the last century, with the rise of Scientific
Management, the notion of a "closed system" crossed over from the
laboratories and into the Board Rooms  as well as Cabinet Rooms. But the
understanding that this was an academic fiction failed to come along -- and
folks took the notion seriously. They actually thought they could close the
system. Truthfully, you can sort of close the system, but it takes a
willing conspiracy of all participants to do so. Very much the Emperor's
Clothes Syndrome. Then some young kid comes along and says the old dude is
buck naked.

The "young kid" in this case was all those wild folks who developed Chaos
Theory, complexity theory -- and related strange ideas. Out of which has
come our current understanding of the function of self-organizing systems.
Interesting.

So when I hear George W. Bush proclaim loudly that he is in control --
presumably of this tightly closed system known as the United States -- I do
have to laugh a bit. The real sadness, however,  (after the humor) is that
I rather thinks he believes it. Put rather bluntly, this is simple
delusion. And like all delusions -- it distorts or prevents a clear
perception of what is actually going on -- which from where I sit is the
on-going process of self-organization which has been operative since the
moment of the Big Bang, or so it seems. The smart money would learn to
maximize  potential under the existing reality. I think bin Laden and
Company are doing just that, consciously or not. This whole thing might
actually be worth while if it  enabled all of us to experience a blinding
flash of the obvious. We (that is all 6 billion of us) are a living, open,
self-organizing system. We are all in this together, and nobody is in
charge. And if any one body manages to close the system down, we will all
have bought the farm.

As for Open Space... I persist in the mad notion that there is nothing new
and different. Nothing special -- just business are usual in the life of
any organism. This is why there is no training needed. We already know. But
there is an enormous opportunity for deep reflection and a good deal of
unlearning. And that, I think is the opportunity of the moment.

Harrison

>Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854 USA
phone 301-469-9269
Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com
Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011018/d73be8df/attachment-0017.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list