OST and POP (was: The Pros and Cons of OST)

[Tree Fitzpatrick]

I may not have read this thread carefully enough, although I have
reread it twice but I make this observation:  OST is about collective
consciousness, isn't it?

Allison wrote:
"One (OB) works mainly with the body, the next (POP) with the psyche
and the third (OST) is used generally with groups."

Each individual is always in open space.  OST is a practice that
encourages the alignment of individuals into collective
understanding/consciousness.

In my humble opinion, the single most important thing about OST is the
aspiration to collective ways of knowing, being and doing.

OB, which I know very little about, can help someone both as an
individual and as a member of a group because OB helps the individual
refine their consciousness filters.  The more clear we are within the
instrument that is our bodies, the more effective we can become both
as an individual and as a participant in collective endeavors.

Process Oriented Psychology (I have been living deeply with the
acronym PoP, Practice of Peace, which, as most members of this list
know, is an extension of OST and the name of Harrison's latest book
and I have a hard time reading POP because I keep thinking PoP), which
I know even less about, sounds like it is still about the individual. 
Individual work is integral to collective work so POP can segue with
OST:  again, the more effective our individual filters are, the better
we can participate in collectives.

OST, in my humble opinion, is a hint of string theory, which I flatly
know nothing about except I read Brian Greene's books.  In my tiny
understanding, string theory explains the impulses that spring between
cells at the most microscopic levels, levels that no one has yet
managed to measure on the physical plane.  String theory envisions
that these pulses are what connects cells that otherwise seem to have
no connection.  OST.

I have a friend who says the next Buddha will be a collective.  I
agree.  Individual work will always be important.  Indeed, in a world
networked by collective consciousness, our individual ways of being
and doing will literally be the filters by which we 'know' what the
collective should do.  The more clear we are within ourselves, the
more clear we are when we knit ourselves into collective ways of
knowing and being and doing.

I do not exactly understand the urge to say OB (gosh, that means
organizational behavior to me!, not Ortho-Bionomy) and POP are OST. 
OB and POP are individual practices.  OST is collective.

Someone also smooshed AI into the same category as OST.  AI is a great
tool, of course, but I do not believe it is rooted in the aspiration
for collective consciousness.  AI, if you ask me and, again, I don't
know that much about it, is based in outer collective work:  There is
lots of room in an AI process to tap the inner knowing of participants
but it does not consciously aspire to create collective inner knowing.
 It's a fantastic tool, of course, especially for use with work groups
that have not done any, or very much, collective inner work.  It is
great to align people from the outside.  OST, I believe, aligns work
groups from the inside out, which is where, I deeply believe, humanity
has to go to lead us out of the messes we are in.

The collective, inner aspect of OST is it's most important.  In my
humble opinion.


--
Warmly,
Tree Fitzpatrick

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