mental meanderings and self-organization

[Chris Corrigan]

Here's one reply I had to reading Julie's post:

The Secret
By Denise Levertov

Two girls discover
the secret of life
in a sudden line of
poetry.

I who don't know the
secret wrote
the line. They
told me

(through a third person)
they had found it
but not what it was
not even

what line it was. No doubt
by now, more than a week
later, they have forgotten
the secret,

the line, the name of
the poem. I love them
for finding what
I can't find,

and for loving me
for the line I wrote,
and for forgetting it
so that

a thousand times, till death
finds them, they may
discover it again, in other
lines

in other
happenings. And for
wanting to know it,
for

assuming there is
such a secret, yes,
for that
most of all.


---
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Consultation - Facilitation
Open Space Technology

Bowen Island, BC, Canada
http://www.chriscorrigan.com
chris at chriscorrigan.com


>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
Julie
>  Smith
>  Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:44 AM
>  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>  Subject: mental meanderings and self-organization
>
>  Greetings  ~
>
>  In my quest for a learning/education theory that resonates with my
sense
>  of the world, I came across a book titled Education on the Edge of
>  Possibility by Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine.  There's a
lot
>  to like about their learning theory.  They talk about the
implications
>  of chaos theory for educators, community-building, creating safe
spaces,
>  and the like.
>
>  One of the authors' focal points is recognition of the existence of
and
>  power of self-organization and some thoughts about how to create the
>  conditions that support it.  Unfortunately, they don't appear to know
>  anything about OST.  I think their theory would be stronger with OST.
>  (But then, what wouldn't be? :))
>
>  The Caines make an argument about self-organization that is new to
me.
>  After talking a bit about that BOIDS program (yes, the very same one
>  Chris invited us to take a look at many moons ago), they quote
another
>  researcher who made this simple observation:
>
>          Complex behavior, like flocking, need not have complex rules.
>          Simple rules will yield profoundly complex results.
>
>  They go on to talk about how our basic beliefs create that web of
simple
>  rules that will yield profoundly complex results.  For example, they
>  identify three simple beliefs/rules that are imbedded in our
educational
>  system:
>
>          Only experts create knowledge.
>          Teachers deliver knowledge in the form of information.
>          Children are graded on how much of the information they have
>  stored.
>
>  They hypothesize that the reason most educational reforms don't
foster
>  much real change is because the underlying beliefs/rules aren't
>  changing.  They posit the idea that self-organization is happening
all
>  the time, AND that we naturally self-organize around those
beliefs/rules
>  that we hold to be true. (This last part is new to me.  Can't quite
get
>  my mind completely around it.  Don't know if I agree with it.  Is
that
>  what we mean by self-organization as we use the term here?)  One
example
>  is hierarchical beliefs self-organizing into hierarchical social
>  structures.  Hence, they say, to deeply change the educational
system,
>  we must begin by changing the basic underlying beliefs of educators:
we
>  must change those simple rules/beliefs that educators self-organize
>  around.
>
>  Aye, there's the rub.  I'm wondering if people here agree with that.
Do
>  we initiate the kind of change we desire by challenging another's
model
>  of the world and attempting to replace it with our own, or do we
simply
>  start with self-organization itself?  Arghhh.....  scratch that
>  question.  Faulty on too many levels.
>
>  So let me go here..... is it self-evident that self-organization
itself
>  (as we know it through OST) frequently expands people's beliefs and
>  understandings and the rules they operate by?  That by providing
>  open/safe/voluntary/equal space we're implicitly offering a new set
of
>  rules and beliefs that can be approached and understood at the level
and
>  pace each participant is prepared to comprehend?  That the process
>  itself is the answer to the problems we pose?  Or how about this:
That
>  what matters is how we relate to each other, how we treat each other,
>  how we think of each other.  That everything else, every problem we
>  think we have, is a vehicle for testing THESE questions.
>
>  I keep asking questions I know the answer to..... so what is it?
Just
>  some mental meanderings on a malingering Monday morning?  Don't know.
>  There's still that unexpressed idea lingering at the edge of
thought....
>  how to participate politely and lightly in the bettering of it
all.....
>  finding new layers of comfort in the process we're in..... easing
into
>  and resting in the goodness and fullness of what we already know.
>
>  Julie
>
>  *
>  *
>  ==========================================================
>  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 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