An OS "critique" and response
Tree Fitzpatrick
therese.fitzpatrick at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 16:31:33 PDT 2005
As an addendum to Chris' summary of Spiral Dynamics (SD), the green
meme has been labeled 'boomeritis' by Ken Wilber, who has taken the
original SD model, which was a model for human psychological
development and projected it into systems/organizational thinking. I
do believe that systems develop in a parallel to human development so
it is a good use of the SD model, IMHO. But somewhere along the line,
Wilber has mushed human, system and consciousness together and his
followers often, at least IMHO, jumble the model to suit their
individual beliefs/memes/consciousness.
As Chris wrote, the green meme is the 'highest' level of first-tier
human development. It can be roughly illustrated by thinking of the
many social movements that emerged in the sixties. Green meme folks
embrace concensus, collaboration, civil rights, egalitarianism but
they have not quite grasped that there are higher levels of
consciousness that might allow them to see solutions in completely
different lenses. Wilber coined the phrase 'boomeritis', which is
actually the name of Wilber's only novel, to suggest that many
liberals get stuck in the green meme, thinking that their level of
'enlightenment' is just fine. As Chris pointed out, most 'first tier'
people think their meme is the only meme. According to Wilber's view
of the green meme, many well-intentioned liberals get 'stuck', they
develop 'boomeritis'. Wilber has backed off from using the phrase
boomeritis and you don't hear Integral/Wilber acolytes using the
phrase 'boomeritis' but most Integral/Wilber followers get the
derision behind Wilber's denigrating choice of labeling the green
memes as stuck/ill-with-an-itis.
I am not a serious student of either SD or Wilber's work. I've
subscribed to IntegralNaked.org from time to time. I've read lots of
SD and Wilber books. But I have never read that Integral/Wilberites
acknowledge that the SD model is a model, an educated guess. They
seem to think it is an accurate description of reality itself.
Neither have I heard Wilberites acknowledge that all human beings move
in and out of levels of development, levels of consciousness and
levels of understanding. I might be green about social issues, orange
about art (orange is second tier, above green) and red about
homophobia in the same moment. Few human beings live frozen, stuck in
just one way of being for all issues in life. As a workplace meeting
takes place, for example, participants might move in and out of memes
like shifting sands.
Most folks, once they become familiar with SD, seem to readily
conclude that they are second tier, ABOVE the green meme. It is
self-serving to place oneself in the second tier but I have rarely
seen SD/Wilberites that acknowledge that seeing themselves as more
evolved than other people is not exactly second tier thinking. When
they start judging and tagging other people, as Steve Bell did in the
article Peggy shared with us, these putative second tier people are
not acting like second tier people.
We're all beings in process. Even Ken Wilber.
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>From Sun Aug 28 17:05:34 2005
Message-Id: <SUN.28.AUG.2005.170534.0700.>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:05:34 -0700
Reply-To: mrguess at integralvisioning.org
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Mr Guess <mrguess at integralvisioning.org>
Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
In-Reply-To: <000b01c5aab1$61378910$0200a8c0 at VAIO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello all
As a regular reader of this list, and reader of both SD and integral
theory, I just want to echo all the sentiments of Karen, here.
And from what I have come to understand, I consider the OS community to
be a healthy healthy expression of what has been called the green meme
(which is a rare and highly needed thing in this world). Kudos to all
y'all.
And from what I understand, where green gets "mean," is when, in its
noble universal embrace, it also rejects all notions of hierarchy (which
is ironically also less than the gift of the universal embrace of
"green").
Also, it seems to me that Ken Wilber's writings have got to be as widely
misunderstood as he is widely read. And most just don't seem to take (or
have) the time to investigate deep enough before they offer a critique
(which seems quite understandable to me). And they often offer a
critique based only on the first few impressions of "followers" and
students (or simple enjoyers), which is not very helpful or educational,
it seems.
One of the "mantras," if you will, of "Wilberites," is that "the map is
never the territory." And so accusations to the contrary might want to
take this into account, I suppose.
Anyway, for whats its worth...
Regards,
Todd Guess
www.toddgues.com
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen
Sella
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:45 PM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
Hi Tree,
Although I can appreciate the sentiments expressed in your response to
SD/Integral folks who are too simplistic/generalist and smug in their
use of Integral/SDi developmental theories, as someone who appreciates
and participates in the Integral and SDi communities, as well as OS, I
want to assure you that there are "grown-ups" among the SD/Wilberites :)
Warm regards,
Karen
Karen Sella
www.luminacoaching.com
206.780.2998
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tree
Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:07 PM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
I echo Tim Weidman's response to Peggy's posts.
I remind this list that Wilber's spin on Spiral Dynamics significantly
distorts the Spiral Dynamics model. Wilber has done a disservice to
the great work embedded in Spiral Dynamics by getting so many of his
followers to denigrate the green meme. It creeps me out to see people
lumping people and systems into the green meme, making the designation
of 'green meme' similar to namecalling in a school yard. I want to
tell all those SD/Wilberites to grow up.
Like Tim, I hate the way SD/Wilberites engage in one-upman-ship, but I
am not above namecalling myself.
Steve Banks must be below the green meme if he experienced three Open
Space events and wrongly concluded that Open Space is green meme.
Surely everyone on this list knows that Open Space fans are highly
evolved, t-2 at a minimum and probably higher. He is obviously
threatened by the advanced tool that is Open Space, eh?!
Your response is excellent, Peggy, although Banks didn't really
deserve a reasoned response.
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>From Sun Aug 28 20:54:25 2005
Message-Id: <SUN.28.AUG.2005.205425.0400.>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:54:25 -0400
Reply-To: chris at got2change.com
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Chris Kloth <chris at got2change.com>
Organization: ChangeWorks of the Heartland
Subject: Re: Inviting Topics for helping social agencies work together?
In-Reply-To: <200508281703_MC3-1-A830-A781 at compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------070907030001050307020608"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070907030001050307020608
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Douglas D. Germann, Sr. wrote:
>Hi--
>
>A couple days ago I had lunch with a lady who is head of a volunteer center
>which gets volunteers for all the social service agencies in the county.
>She said that the major conversation that needs to happen in town is How
>can we work together better as social agencies? She sees turf wars as
>preventing working together.
>
>So I am curious what inviting topics you have seen people have that gathers
>passion and responsibility around getting social agencies working together.
>
>It occurred to me we need to get specific when we invite conversations on
>this question--"turf wars" is too general, people cannot really get a
>handle on it, as something that might have a solution. It feels too much
>like this is the environment we live in: how can fish do anything about the
>water?
>
>
Thanks for sharing the question. This is a topic of particular interest
for me.
My sense is that there are a variety of internal and external forces
(some positive, some negative, some...) that are leading people in the
non-profit sector to revisit or reframe "working together." My careers,
jobs and volunteer work for most of my life have been rooted in various
dimensions of working together...especially among private and public
organizations involved in issues of social justice. In the last 10
years it has been the core of most of my work.
When I start working with a new client system I usually "interview"
members and leaders of the stakeholders in the system. Early in the
interviews most people talk about how they are not sure what the big
deal is about working together...they say they have been doing it for a
long time and suggest it is a core value of nonprofits. However, when we
talk longer they begin telling me about other nonprofits in the
community that make working together difficult and the word "turf"
always comes up. The person or organization I am with says something
like this: "I/We like to work with others and do it well [providing a
few examples in which it appears to me clear that they are the dominant
player in the relationship], but when we try to work with [insert one or
more potential partners] they are always trying to protect their turf."
[Translate the last part of the comment in a couple of ways: the other
group was/is the more dominant member of the potential relationship
and/or the speaker really is trying to invade the other's area of
expertise, value to the community or sources of funding.]
I believe there is a part of the historic value related to working
together among many social workers, advocates and others working in
communities, as well as aspects of their professional training rooted in
family systems work and in building on community assets. Unfortunately,
at the moment their dominant economic model is rooted in a
scarcity-driven view of the world...in part because there are external
forces such as funders, governments and others that seem to find
reinforcing the scarcity view of the world advantageous to their
interests. Since the perception of scarce resources affects their view
of survival they easily fall into protecting what resources they have
(not limited to money) and, in some cases, try to expand their base.
Voila! Turf wars begin to emerge and historic values go out the
window. [This is a part of the conversation that I could go on forever
about, but I will return to the original question...]
I agree that the question of what to do about turf is too broad...the
phrase I like to use is that it needs to be broad enough to be inclusive
and narrow enough to be actionable. In my work with nonprofits I have
found that framing the question around "legitimate interdependence" is
very important. In my view, this concept is quite consistent with OST.
Some of the reasons I believe legitimate interdependence is key are:
1. It asks the question, "Why do we need to or want to work together?"
2. In answering the first question it usually leads to a focus on how
the people or communities they serve will benefit. (passion &
responsibility)
3. When it focuses on the needs of those they serve it allows them to
focus on what they each bring to the table in a positive way. (passion &
responsibility)
4. When the focus is on service, assets and justice it shifts the
emphasis, at least for a time, away from turf, old baggage and agency
survival.
5. Even a little bit of conversation in the proactive mode provides a
bit of a foundation to frame or reframe relationships, as well as mental
models.
[I have written more about my view in "legitimate interdependence" in a
few articles and as part of chapters in a couple of books concept if you
are interested. I am also working on my own multi-media publication on
the models this is rooted in.]
In various situations I have seen OST, future search and appreciative
inquiry (used alone or in combination) find the basis for legitimate
interdependence (passion & responsibility)...being able to say, "we
really need each other to achieve what we aspire to achieve." When
they get to this point they can usually begin to discover or re-discover
what it will take to work together and get busy working on it.
So, Douglas, it seems to me the start of the process of answering your
question about addressing turf wars is located somewhere in finding
where there is legitimate interdependence - broad enough to be
inclusive, narrow enough to be actionable, rooted in passion and
responsibility.
An intriguing question to me is how to take this question "to scale."
In my work the principle of think globally, act locally leads to learn
what each client defines as local...a neighborhood, a city, a state.
My sense is that this issue is a national issue in the US and, probably,
global issue. Your question challenges me to think about where the
legitimate interdependence would emerge at that scale.
Shalom,
Chris Kloth
Senior Partner
ChangeWorks of the Heartland
250 South Virginialee Road
Columbus, OH 43209-2052
Phone: 614.239.1336
Fax: 614.237.2347
E-mail: chris at got2change.com <mailto:chris at got2change.com>
URL: www.got2change.com <http://www.got2change.com/>
Think Globally, Act Locally
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
--------------070907030001050307020608
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Douglas D. Germann, Sr. wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200508281703_MC3-1-A830-A781 at compuserve.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi--
A couple days ago I had lunch with a lady who is head of a volunteer center
which gets volunteers for all the social service agencies in the county.
She said that the major conversation that needs to happen in town is How
can we work together better as social agencies? She sees turf wars as
preventing working together.
So I am curious what inviting topics you have seen people have that gathers
passion and responsibility around getting social agencies working together.
It occurred to me we need to get specific when we invite conversations on
this question--"turf wars" is too general, people cannot really get a
handle on it, as something that might have a solution. It feels too much
like this is the environment we live in: how can fish do anything about the
water?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for sharing the question. This is a topic of particular
interest for me. <br>
<br>
<br>
My sense is that there are a variety of internal and external forces
(some positive, some negative, some...) that are leading people in the
non-profit sector to revisit or reframe "working together." My
careers, jobs and volunteer work for most of my life have been rooted
in various dimensions of working together...especially among private
and public organizations involved in issues of social justice. In the
last 10 years it has been the core of most of my work. <br>
<br>
<br>
When I start working with a new client system I usually "interview"
members and leaders of the stakeholders in the system. Early in the
interviews most people talk about how they are not sure what the big
deal is about working together...they say they have been doing it for a
long time and suggest it is a core value of nonprofits. However, when
we talk longer they begin telling me about other nonprofits in the
community that make working together difficult and the word "turf"
always comes up. The person or organization I am with says something
like this: "I/We like to work with others and do it well [providing a
few examples in which it appears to me clear that they are the dominant
player in the relationship], but when we try to work with [insert one
or more potential partners] they are always trying to protect their
turf." [Translate the last part of the comment in a couple of ways:
the other group was/is the more dominant member of the potential
relationship and/or the speaker really is trying to invade the other's
area of expertise, value to the community or sources of funding.]<br>
<br>
<br>
I believe there is a part of the historic value related to working
together among many social workers, advocates and others working in
communities, as well as aspects of their professional training rooted
in family systems work and in building on community assets.
Unfortunately, at the moment their dominant economic model is rooted in
a scarcity-driven view of the world...in part because there are
external forces such as funders, governments and others that seem to
find reinforcing the scarcity view of the world advantageous to their
interests. Since the perception of scarce resources affects their view
of survival they easily fall into protecting what resources they have
(not limited to money) and, in some cases, try to expand their base.
Voila! Turf wars begin to emerge and historic values go out the
window. [This is a part of the conversation that I could go on forever
about, but I will return to the original question...]<br>
<br>
<br>
I agree that the question of what to do about turf is too broad...the
phrase I like to use is that it needs to be broad enough to be
inclusive and narrow enough to be actionable. In my work with
nonprofits I have found that framing the question around "legitimate
interdependence" is very important. In my view, this concept is quite
consistent with OST. Some of the reasons I believe legitimate
interdependence is key are:<br>
<br>
<br>
1. It asks the question, "Why do we need to or want to work
together?" <br>
<br>
<br>
2. In answering the first question it usually leads to a focus on how
the people or communities they serve will benefit. (passion &
responsibility)<br>
<br>
<br>
3. When it focuses on the needs of those they serve it allows them to
focus on what they each bring to the table in a positive way. (passion
& responsibility)<br>
<br>
<br>
4. When the focus is on service, assets and justice it shifts the
emphasis, at least for a time, away from turf, old baggage and agency
survival.<br>
<br>
<br>
5. Even a little bit of conversation in the proactive mode provides a
bit of a foundation to frame or reframe relationships, as well as
mental models.<br>
<br>
<br>
[I have written more about my view in "legitimate interdependence" in a
few articles and as part of chapters in a couple of books concept if
you are interested. I am also working on my own multi-media
publication on the models this is rooted in.]<br>
<br>
<br>
In various situations I have seen OST, future search and appreciative
inquiry (used alone or in combination) find the basis for legitimate
interdependence (passion & responsibility)...being able to say, "we
really need each other to achieve what we aspire to achieve." When
they get to this point they can usually begin to discover or
re-discover what it will take to work together and get busy working on
it.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, Douglas, it seems to me the start of the process of answering your
question about addressing turf wars is located somewhere in finding
where there is legitimate interdependence - broad enough to be
inclusive, narrow enough to be actionable, rooted in passion and
responsibility.<br>
<br>
<br>
An intriguing question to me is how to take this question "to scale."
In my work the principle of think globally, act locally leads to learn
what each client defines as local...a neighborhood, a city, a state.
My sense is that this issue is a national issue in the US and,
probably, global issue. Your question challenges me to think about
where the legitimate interdependence would emerge at that scale.<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Shalom,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Chris
Kloth<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Senior
Partner<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">ChangeWorks
of the Heartland<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">250 South Virginialee Road</span></st1:address></st1:Street><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Columbus</span></st1:City><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, <st1:State w:st="on">OH</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">43209-2052</st1:PostalCode></span></st1:place><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Phone:
614.239.1336<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Fax:
614.237.2347<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">E-mail:
<a href="mailto:chris at got2change.com">chris at got2change.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">URL:
<a href="http://www.got2change.com/">www.got2change.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Think
Globally, Act Locally<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
--------------070907030001050307020608--
>From Sun Aug 28 17:58:21 2005
Message-Id: <SUN.28.AUG.2005.175821.0700.>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:58:21 -0700
Reply-To: mrguess at integralvisioning.org
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Mr Guess <mrguess at integralvisioning.org>
Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
In-Reply-To: <4409218a58e582d483d6b15083ef9c16 at cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Tim
>From what I understand, there really is no "2t" group methods, except
perhaps to curiously and specifically simply observe all the radical
diversity in life, as it is (which is often where talk of deep
meditation practice comes in...or "doing" nothing). 2t simply INCLUDES
all "first tier methods."
I think a big part of "integral," is its inclusivity WITH the
capacity/willingness to also measure the different values (rather than
simply calling them all 100% equal in a non-measuring "flatland" sort of
way..which is the limited but wonderful gift of green).
And so perhaps, at any given moment, 2nd tier "activity" can look like a
rave, a BBQ, a family reunion, the stock market, politics, religion, or
an OST session, etc... Because not only does it include the beautiful
"greenish" behaviour of OST and so many other multi-cultural and more
universal venues and ways of being, but acknowledges the partial values
of all the less-than-open "lower" behaviours as well, right as they are
in their stage of development.
In this sense, I think, many OST practitioners are already "2nd tier
thinkers." History is full them too. imo, The newer label is a useful
post-modern tool.
"2nd tier" seems to start where things get very very much more complex
than all previous stages, which is perhaps the unique new challenge for
what SDI and such calls "yellow." Every stage has its unique hurdles.
There are also notions of a "mean yellow," where even 2nd tier can get
spooky and overzealous (which is perhaps what some OST folks are
reacting to). I can understand this.
As an example of "transcend and include," which is another sort of
"mantra" of integral theory, I include my awareness of and efforts with
opening ways of dialogue (such as OST) as a very vital component/module
of my personal "integral practice."
I hope this helps
Todd Guess
www.toddguess.com
-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tim
Weidman
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:57 PM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
i would love to know what group methods these int/sd community members
consider 2t
On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Karen Sella wrote:
> Brilliant, Peggy!
>
> Thank you for taking the time to respond so generously and graciously
> to Steve Banks. I completely agree with you.
>
> For some time, I have offered the perspective that OS is
> “2nd-tier“---the principles of OS transcending and including all the
> potential 1st-tier interactions---to others in the Integral/SDi
> community who share this misconception that OS is a “green” method.
> I have also introduced several “Integral/SDi” folks to Open Space as
> a practical method congruent with 2nd-tier thinking that allows people
> to more readily embody/enact 2nd-tier, even convening a few Open Space
> events on their behalf, and I’m happy to say that some folks seem to
> “get it,” even though there are still others who maintain that OS is
> “green.”
>
> One theory I have about this misconception in the realm of integral is
> that most of the folks within the Integral/SDi communities who
> maintain that OS is “green” have either not experience Open Space or
> they have experienced Open Space where the center of gravity of the
> group in the room is green and the “integral” folks in the room are
> confusing the state/stage of the people in the room with the method
> i.e. the fact that folks may be primarily embodying green during an
> Open Space event does not mean that the Open Space method is green,
> just like “Spiral Wizards” tailoring their interactions for the
> predominately green consciousness of an audience, does not mean that
> they, the Spiral Wizards, are operating from green consciousness
>
> In any case, suffice it to say that I really appreciate reading your
> wonderfully articulated and educated written response.
>
> Warm regards,
> Karen
>
>
> Karen Sella
> www.luminacoaching.com
> 206.780.2998
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Peggy Holman
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:55 PM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: An OS "critique" and response
>
> Hhmmmm, I notice the attachments aren't attached. Here are links
> instead:
>
> From Steve Banks:
> http://www.opencirclecompany.com/FromOpenSpaceToIntegralSpace.doc
>
>
> My response: http://www.opencirclecompany.com/IntegralOpenSpace.doc
>
> still sunny in Seattle,
> Peggy
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Peggy Holman
>> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:00 PM
>> Subject: [OSLIST] An OS "critique" and response
>>
>> My friend, Tom Atlee, sent me the attached doc, From Open
>> Space...egral Space.doc, by Steve Banks. It struck me as so
>> misinformed and error filled that I responded with Integral Open
>> Space.doc.
>>
>> Thought you might find both the impressions of a neophyte and my
>> response of interest.
>>
>> from sunny Seattle,
>> Peggy
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Peggy Holman
>> The Open Circle Company
>> 15347 SE 49th Place
>> Bellevue, WA 98006
>> (425) 746-6274
>>
>> www.opencirclecompany.com
>> * * ==========================================================
>> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
>> subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
>> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
>> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about
>> OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
>> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
> * * ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about
> OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU ------------------------------ To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
> oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about
> OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>From Sun Aug 28 20:14:18 2005
Message-Id: <SUN.28.AUG.2005.201418.0500.>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:14:18 -0500
Reply-To: mherman at globalchicago.net
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Michael Herman <mjherman at gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Themes & topics?
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP03F041CE848944DFFDD9A1D9AC0 at cez.ice>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
this came to me instead of us...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Larry Peterson <larry at spiritedorg.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Themes & topics?
To: mherman at globalchicago.net
I strongly agree with Harrison & Michael (I think). Generating a theme
for an event that will be powerful has some elements or characteristics.
--It is a question that focuses a "possibility" space
--It is "appreciative"
--It is and is perceived to be a real performance challenge -- not just
something someone would like to do
--It is something that enough people "want" to deal with, talk about,
develop progress on - so that they decided to come and be present.
--It is best developed with those who are sponsoring the Open Space. I
spend the most important time of planning working with the sponsor to
identify a theme for which they have some real passion. Finding the
words, at this point, is important. I usually let this happen over more
than one planning meeting. I ask the sponsor to test the key ideas with
some potential participants to ensure it will evoke energy. The key
words of the theme usually emerge until there is an ah ha -- a felt
experience that we have it.
--If the facilitator is part of the sponsor group, then it really needs
to be tested to see if it is meeting folks needs or the facilitators
needs.
Some quick ideas.
Larry
Larry Peterson
Associates in Transformation
Toronto, ON, Canada
416.653.4829
larry at spiritedorg.com
www.spiritedorg.com
--
Michael Herman
Executive Facilitator
http://www.michaelherman.com
Getting the most important things done,
in the easiest possible ways.
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
More information about the OSList
mailing list