Chicago Social Forum (again) AND Conversing about..."the right conditions"

Fri Sep 12 04:15:44 PDT 2003

Hi,
It seems to me that we have to be a little careful in our acceptance of
what happened being the only thing that could have happened. It is true and
extremely useful in enabling us to let go of control once we are in the
thick of things. On the other hand it should never prevent us from
wondering how we got to now. Given the people involved, given the context,
given the preparation, given the whole bunch of stuff what happened IS the
only thing that could have happened.

We learn from our mistakes and the from the mistakes of others. Thank God,
I'd hate to have to make them all myself. Hence the learning that comes
from the OSlist which give access to the mistakes and the successes of
others. Up to the moment I act,I have choice and I an apply my learning.
Once I act,.... too late.........what happened is the only thing
that.......given my thinking up to that moment.

Acceptance is about what has already happened, learning is about what has
yet to happen.

Shay

At 10:01 11/09/2003, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>Thanks for this story - I found it very interesting. It made me think of
>a dilemma that I'm currently working on, namely how to relate acceptance
>of what happens to learning from what happened.
>
>On the one hand we need to accept (or indeed to go one step further and
>appreciate) whatever happens. On the other hand we need to learn from
>what happens - wether it worked or not. To me, this means that I must be
>open to the possibility that maybe what happened was not the best
>possible result. I must ask the question "Could it have gone better?"
>
>Of course in many cases it's difficult to know with any certainty what
>is better, but even though it is difficult you must still try.
>
>So my question to you is: How do you reconcile an acceptance (or
>appreciation) of what happened with an awareness of even better
>potential outcomes, in order to learn?
>
>Cheers
>
>Alexander
>
>Ted Ernst wrote:
>
>>Some of you may have read my earlier emails about the Chicago Social Forum
>>process.  I facilatated a 4-person OST event for the Aug planning meeting
>>where it was decided to do it again for the Sept meeting, where the first
>>part would be a suggestion for conversations on the theme Local/Global and
>>the 2nd part would be a suggestion for "business type" organizing for the
>>"event" on Jan 31-Feb 1 (the Chicago Social Forum is both a process and an
>>event, I suppose).
>>
>>Anyway, last night was that Sept meeting and while the process worked
>>perfectly as always, and what happened was the only thing that could have, I
>>was left thinking "these people just aren't ready for this type of
>>self-responsibility."  Harrison pointed out a couple of months back that
>>he'd take battle hardened marines over the peace, love and light crowd any
>>time if choosing a group that thrives in open space.  I can't remember his
>>reasoning, but last night I had to do a heck of a lot of internal work to
>>just let it all happen.
>>
>>The first session went off pretty well (a couple of people wanted to change
>>the process, but we worked through that) with abot 5 conversations among
>>about 14 people, ranging from the FTAA actions to Africa to Food Security to
>>Housing and more.  Good stuff and people seemed to like it.  I felt
>>something strange when people were getting ready to change sessions I went
>>to the washroom (not wanting to influence people's actions by my presence).
>>When I came back I found everyone in a circle dispite the 5 or 6 distinct
>>topics on the wall.  Everyone merged themselves into the "Program
>>Committee."  This kind of large group (facilitated) discussion always seems
>>like such a waste of time to me as I'm not interested in many of the issues
>>discussed, but I don't want to impose my agenda on the whole group so my
>>stuff doesn't get discussed.  Anyway, I took a seat outside the circle
>>(there wasn't space in the circle and I didn't want to push my way in,
>>didn't feel right as the facilitator at that moment) and listened (I
>>expressed a substantive opinion at one point, but nothing about process).
>>
>>One topic that came up was the format for future organizing meetings.  Some
>>people said point blank they'd like a traditional format while others liked
>>the idea of open space for the 1st session as a way to have conversations
>>that might not otherwise take place, but having the large group 2nd part was
>>universally accepted.  One person opinioned that union leaders or clergy
>>that have little time to go to more meetings would likely not come back to a
>>process using something so strange as the open space format.
>>
>>My assessment:  They don't get it.  Is this the only thing that could've
>>happened?  Yes.  Given that these are were the right people, this is the
>>only way the meeting could've gone.  If these were not the right people,
>>what's the point in even having the meeting or discussing what happened as
>>the point is moot.  I'm convinced these were/are the right people and
>>they're not ready to trust themselves nor take responsibility for creating
>>something truly unprecedented.  I'm happy we tried it no matter what, but if
>>anything comes out of last night, I hope it's that people now feel the
>>tension between what they're trying to create and the ways in which they're
>>used to working.  If they don't so be it, but if they do, maybe they'll be
>>ready for more open space at another time.
>>
>>Peace,
>>Ted
>>Humanize the Earth!  http://www.chicagohumanist.org
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On
>>>Behalf Of Chris Corrigan
>>>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:38 AM
>>>To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been working hard over the past few years to let go of
>>>what might be and just focus on what is.  To say that there
>>>are "right" conditions and "wrong" conditions, especially as
>>>regards to the future is, as you point out, not a very useful
>>>exercise.
>>>
>>>Accepting the now is basically all we can do.  To argue with
>>>reality is insanity!  But it's never easy to get a clear
>>>picture of what "now" is. We have to see past the stories we
>>>generate in our heads or in our relationships to get at the
>>>underlying "now-ness" of the present moment.
>>>
>>>Of course I can believe that we can influence our futures,
>>>but I stop short about saying how.  Yesterday's "initial
>>>conditions" have led us to where we are today.  And today's
>>>"action" is tomorrow's "initial conditions."  Given the
>>>intellectual yoga required to grasp all this, perhaps the
>>>best thing to do is just DO.  And of course we will all have
>>>our own ideas about doing what, but I think most people try
>>>to act out of goodness or positive intention.  Throwing
>>>people into Open Space to explore options for doing just
>>>increases each person's exposure to alternatives, leading to
>>>a richer field of action.
>>>
>>>So, as usual, I have outlined a roundabout way of agreeing
>>>with you, Marei.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>---
>>>CHRIS CORRIGAN
>>>Bowen Island, BC, Canada
>>>http://www.chriscorrigan.com
>>>chris at chriscorrigan.com
>>>
>>>(604) 947-9236
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>Marei
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kiele
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:32 PM
>>>>To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>>Subject: Re: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
>>>>
>>>>Dear Chris, dear Arthur,
>>>>
>>>>it has been very interesting for me to think about the question and
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>answer given. During the last days I tried to clarify for
>>>>
>>>myself the
>>>
>>>
>>>>difference between accepting and
>>>>
>>>not-doing-anything-anymore. For me it
>>>has
>>>
>>>
>>>>to do with the time I am referring to.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that whatever happens under the present conditions
>>>>
>>>is whatever
>>>
>>>
>>>>could have and that there is no use in thinking about "ifs" and
>>>>
>>>"shoulds".
>>>
>>>
>>>>And maybe the conditions are not only right but neither right nor
>>>>
>>>wrong -
>>>
>>>
>>>>they just are. This is true esp. when thinking about the now or the
>>>>
>>>past.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But thinking about the future I can ask which conditions are
>>>>
>>>supportive
>>>
>>>
>>>>and which are not: which make change, development,
>>>>
>>>transformation more
>>>
>>>
>>>>possible than others? If one of the things necessary for
>>>>differenciation (as I agree with)
>>>>
>>>is a
>>>
>>>
>>>>nutritious environment - than we can influence the
>>>>
>>>possibilities for
>>>
>>>
>>>>transformation by sharing nutrition (physically or in other
>>>>
>>>dimensions).
>>>
>>>
>>>>And referring to "wrong" conditions in organisations, the world, our
>>>>heads: Maybe they seem not to be helpful or not fitting anymore or
>>>>
>>>born
>>>
>>>
>>>>out of anxiousness. But at least they were the "right"
>>>>
>>>conditions at
>>>
>>>
>>>>another time or place. And in the moment being they are
>>>>
>>>still "right"
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>the organisation or the person and we - judging them - just
>>>>
>>>don't have
>>>all
>>>
>>>
>>>>the insights...
>>>>
>>>>What I decided to try doing is both: totally accept the past and the
>>>>
>>>now -
>>>
>>>
>>>>but do my share to influence the future (and accept whatever is
>>>>
>>>coming).
>>>
>>>
>>>>Does that make sense to you?
>>>>
>>>>Marei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Chris Corrigan" <chris at chriscorrigan.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whatever conditions are present are the right conditions for
>>>>>
>>>whatever
>>>
>>>
>>>>>happens is the only thing that could have happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the second principle refers to the fact that no
>>>>>
>>>matter what
>>>
>>>
>>>>>initial conditions are present, whatever happens is the only thing
>>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>could have.  It sounds like a tautology, but I think of
>>>>>
>>>it more as a
>>>Zen
>>>
>>>
>>>>>koan.  It is supposed to bring your consciousness to a place that
>>>>>accepts the fact that "should" is an extremely useless
>>>>>
>>>word when we
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>>>dealing with an expanded now.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the conditions that make Open Space really hum, I
>>>>>
>>>go back to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Harrison's elegantly stated four: passion, diversity,
>>>>>
>>>complexity and
>>>
>>>
>>>>>urgency.  The more of each, the better the process works.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that, for many facilitators and managers, is another paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>CHRIS CORRIGAN
>>>>>Bowen Island, BC, Canada
>>>>>http://www.chriscorrigan.com
>>>>>chris at chriscorrigan.com
>>>>>
>>>>>(604) 947-9236
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On
>>>>>>
>>>Behalf Of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Artur
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ferreira da Silva
>>>>>>Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:18 AM
>>>>>>To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>>>>>Subject: Conversing about..."the right conditions"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For someone like myself that has problems with the capitalized
>>>>>>
>>>word
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Spirit (as well as with some other capitalized words) and with the
>>>>>
>>>>wording of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the "principle" that says "whatever happens is the only thing that
>>>>>
>>>could
>>>
>>>
>>>>>have" I felt very surprised as I completely agree with this
>>>>>
>>>formulation
>>>
>>>
>>>>>(from Alan's, "The Conversing Company"):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"... When people interact under the right conditions, spirit or
>>>>>>intelligence emerges automatically - it is the only thing that
>>>>>>
>>>could
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>have".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The way I see the "right conditions" to be present, or not, are
>>>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- In "normal organizations", using current meeting
>>>>>>
>>>methodologies,
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>wrong conditions are normally present - they are
>>>>>>
>>>"closed" by rules
>>>and
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>regulations, both explicit and tacit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- In our outside macro-world the wrong conditions are normally
>>>>>>
>>>present
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>(see the Middle East or Iraq - before and now - to give only two
>>>>>>
>>>>examples -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>maybe three).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Inside our heads the wrong conditions are normally
>>>>>>
>>>present  - as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>obsolete "mental models".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the space to be open it is necessary that someone
>>>>>>
>>>opens it AND
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that the "right conditions" are defined/clarified in the first
>>>>>
>>>place.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Those
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>right conditions are not only the OST principles and law but also:
>>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>correct preparation, the fact that all stakeholders with enough
>>>>>
>>>>diversity are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>invited (but not obliged, directly or indirectly) to
>>>>>>
>>>participate,
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>right and open theme is addressed, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would very much like to see what others think that are the
>>>>>>
>>>"right
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>conditions" for "whatever happens is the only thing that could
>>>>>>
>>>happen"
>>>
>>>
>>>>>to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Alexander Kjerulf
>www.kjerulf.com
>alexander at kjerulf.com
>Tagensvej 126, lejl. 102
>2200 København N.
>+45 2688 2373
>
>Trænger du til noget arbejdsglæde? Kender du nogen som gør?
>www.projektarbejdsglaede.dk
>
>*
>*
>==========================================================
>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

Crossroads Facilitation
50 Carrigdhoun, Waterpark, Carrigaline, Co. Cork
www.crossroadsfacilitation.ie
"Building bridges and getting you over them"

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