Advanced Butterfly Behavior

Tree Fitzpatrick therese.fitzpatrick at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 13:35:35 PDT 2006 

Once again, I have to weigh in and thank one of our masters, HO.  Yes, yes,
yes, the butterfly is the essence of OS and any butterfly behavior resides
fully within this thing we call OS.

More and more (lately I have felt completely out of control)  I am quite
conscious of BEING a butterfly in each moment of my life.

I recently attended the National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation.
Today, in my mailbox, I was invited to give feedback about the conference.
To my puzzlement, I learned, in the survey questions, that many people
reported that this conference, NCDD, was the best conference they had ever
been to.  For me, it was a draining challenge to endure it:  many wonderful
people (some of our own dear oslisters like Peggy and Lisa Heft!) offered
excellent breakout sessions.  The plenary sessions were thoughtfully and
skillfully designed and, for the most part, well-executed.  The organizers
wove art and beauty into our days together.  But I could not bring myself to
go to any sessions.  And when I did force myself to stumble into one or two,
I felt bullied and bruised, although certainly no one was bullying me.
Certainly, I was free in every single moment of my experience of this NCDD
event to be a butterfly and, most definitely, I knew this.

I got lucky at this particular conference.  I had a best buddy who also
eschewed most of the formality of the event, although he had slightly
different reasons than me.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity to me, on the afternoon of the
second day, there was a ninety minute OS. All day on that second day, I
could feel the fresh air rising.  By the time it finally came to open the
space (which was done by a fine OS newbie Matthew Blom), I was feeling
downright joyful and oxegenated.  I was giddy.  I was happy.  I felt at
home.  During the long time it took for people to announce their sessions, I
found myself criss-crossing the ballroom, almost as if I were dancing:  it
felt so good to finally have permission to do what I had been doing all
along.  I didn't listen to any of the agenda topics because I didn't need
to:  I knew I would continue to be a butterfly.

My butterfly buddy said "You know, it is getting so if it isn't about my
work in the world, I am not really interested" and I said "If it isn't in
OS, I am not interested". . . and we had a fine, butterfly time doing as we
pleased.  But it cost me:  I want to be respectful, kind and good.  I want
to receive the wisdom and knowledge that was surely embedded in all of the
fine workshops offered at NCDD:  but pre-set the schedule, put my
opportunities to learn into boxes and I am gone.  What my friend was saying,
I believe, is that he is interested in following what has heart and meaning
for him, that it has taken him awhile to get to a place of clear
intentionality, to know who he is, to know what he wishes to do, who he
wishes to serve:  once someone reaches such a point, they need to become, I
believe, butterflies.

Did I have a great time at NCDD?  Oh yes, yes, indeed.  Because I found the
butterflies. . . or, perhaps, they found me.

I guess there is a place in the world for conferences like NCDD, to bring
together 400 process activists who are striving to build both their skill
base and their professionalism but if I had been allowed to hang out with
those 400 people in OS instead of in boxes, gosh golly, I would have been
truly bedazzled instead of just having fun with a few butterflies on the
side.

On 8/15/06, Harrison Owen <hhowen at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>  Mark -- I will match you Butterfly to Butterfly. And I win, if only
> because I have been doing it longer, at least in an Open Space environment.
> I have often thought that the only reason I didn't jettison OS after the
> first (successful) run was that it felt so good -- and that was all about
> being a Butterfly and enjoying the company of other such critters (yourself,
> for example) out there in the flower patch. After all, I have a notoriously
> short attention span, and doing something for 20 years is simply out of
> character. So nothing I said should be construed as derogatory to that
> exalted state and condition. Butterflies forever!
>
> I guess what I was responding to in Peggy's note was that I truly didn't
> see the example she gave as being that of "advanced Butterfly Behavior." To
> me it looked pretty much like same old, same old, (pre-selected group) and
> truth be told -- "narrow minded and short sighted." If folks choose such
> activity, so be it and God love them. But from where I sit, it radically
> sub-optimizes the possibilities of Open Space, simply because it reduces the
> diversity of the conversation pool. And yes I too love to sit with one or
> two "good buddies" (new or old) -- but my constant experience is that the
> odd, wayward, interloper (butterfly) usually adds spice to the occasion. Of
> course it sometimes ends it too -- and the two feet take over. However the
> novelty of a new face, mind, point of view is almost inevitably a
> positive (except when it isn't).
>
> There is one point on which I really must (I think) take issue with you.
> You said, "AND --- All of this occurs "outside" of the formal process and
> form of OST. "Butterfly-ness" is acknowledged by the process, and held by
> the form of OST.  But it is not the practice-normed form of OST which is
> essentially --gatherings around publicly advertised topics and conveners in
> specific places at specific times." Actually I would see "butterfly-ness" as
> the essence of Open Space and all the rest as a practical accommodation to
> the needs of some (many) people for a specific time, place, and topic. Of
> course the "time" is a movable feast (starts when it starts) and the topic
> seems to mutate, and even the "place" can be a sometime thing. In the very
> best of Open Spaces (vibrant, alive, fiercely productive, fun, frivolous,
> and seriously engaging) in my experience, the minimal structure of
> time/place/topic/ participants breaks down completely and everything is in a
> constant flow-state. It is all butterflies! So maybe the "practice-normed
> form of OST" is simply practice and preparation for that wonderful moment
> when we all learn to fly. Now THAT would be "advanced Butterfly Behavior!"
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
>
> Harrison Owen
> 7808 River Falls Dr.
> Potomac, MD  20854
> USA
> 301-365-2093
> 207-763-3261 (summer)
> website www.openspaceworld.com
> Personal Website www.ho-image.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mark R. Jones <mark.r.jones at sunyata.ws>
> *To:* Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> ; OSLIST<OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Advanced Butterfly Behavior
>
> Hi H (Harrison) and Peggy.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .
>
> There is an element here for me that is implied in Peggy's
> piece and your response to it that I would like to explore . . .
>
> The "butterfly" phenomena in OST has been widely acknowledged
> by you and others.  As a dedicated "butterfly" myself, I find
> that I do have some reflections on the topic that Peggy has raised.
>
> In my "butterfly-ness", I assemble, attract, and/or am attracted
> to people with which I typically have very intense, personal, and
> private conversations with.  These conversations occur in both 1:1
> and group forms. H, over the years, you and I have had these types
> of interactions with each other -- in the midst of OS events.
>
> In my "butterfly-ness", I discern  who I want to be in conversation
> with -- The Law of Two Feet -- and then act upon that discernment.
> As you know H, I rarely actually attend "called" (posted) sessions.
>
> Yet, I feel welcome to play in Open Space -- not negatively judged
> for my discernment -- my exercise of The Law of Two Feet.
>
> In my "butterfly-ness", I learn to hear, see, and love other people.
> And perhaps others learn to hear, see, and love me and each other.
> I acquire and refine insights and discover connections.
>
> Unfortunately, I rarely document my learnings within the formal
> mechanisms of OST.  And my "public" sharings do not contain the
> richness of the private details that I have discovered.
>
> Yet, I feel that there is some common good that comes of it.
> Some mutual sense of interconnection, compassion, and understanding
> is established.  Some of the insights are returned to the public
> forum. And, interpersonal relationships are established and/or
> reinforced.
>
> AND --- All of this occurs "outside" of the formal process and form
> of OST.  "Butterfly-ness" is acknowledged by the process, and held
> by the form of OST.  But it is not the practice-normed form of OST
> which is essentially -- gatherings around publicly advertised topics
> and conveners in specific places at specific times.
>
> If in the two examples that Peggy gave, the participants had simply
> "butterflyed" their intention to meet together -- there would have
> been no public declaration and no public outrage and judgment, and
> possibly no public sharing.  The "sessions" would have occurred outside
> of the formal process and form of OST.
>
> But I suspect that the session participants chose to try to in some way
> to "honor" the formal process and form of OST by attempting to use some
> of the OST mechanisms of "public" declaration.  This partial revelation
> of intent created a public stir regarding what was in all likelihood
> a space in which very personal and private conversations could occur.
>
>
> Peggy's inquiry provokes me to ponder:
>  * What ways does and can the formal process and form of OST more deeply
>    embrace and benefit from "butterfly-ness"?
>  * Does the formal process and form of OST fundamentally reject "private"
>    conversation and its manifestation in some forms of "butterfly-ness"?
>  * Is the manifestation of some forms of "butterfly-ness" as "private"
>    conversation a perversion of OST?
>  * Is acting upon "The Law of Two Feet" as a means of interpersonal
>    relationship discernment a perversion of OST?
>  * In the cultural norms of OST, am I required to give up my practice
>    of choosing who I want to interact with?
>
>
>
>
> *Mark R. Jones
> **Chief Executive Officer
> The Sunyata Group
> The Integral Wellness Group
> *----------------------------------------------------------------------
> PO Box 58788
> Renton, Washington
> USA 98058-1788
> Phone:      425-413-6000
> e-Mail:      mark.r.jones at sunyata.ws
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *Harrison Owen <hhowen at adelphia.net>
> *Reply-To: *Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:13:27 -0400
> *To: *<OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> *Subject: *Re: Advanced Butterfly Behavior
>
> I am not sure that I would see such occurrences as "advanced butterfly
> behavior. Narrow minded and shortsighted come to mind. Folks will do what
> they will do -- and whatever happens is the only thing that could have. . .
> but I really think that the conveners of such groups are short-changing
> themselves and all those who come to the session (and maybe all those who
> don't, as well). By arbitrarily restricting the diversity of the group the
> potential for new and deeper thought/experience is radically reduced. I must
> also confess to a certain abhorrence to terms like "culturally mature" --
> and even more with those who think they could make such a determination. I
> am reminded of the situation at the recent OS for Imams and Rabbis. As it
> happened there were several young students present including a delightful 19
> year old lady from Indonesia. On the face of it, I doubt she would have made
> anybody's list as "culturally mature." And given her natural modesty I am
> sure that she would never have made the association for herself. But the
> fact of the matter is that her natural charm, intelligence and curiosity
> made her in my eyes (and for others as well) one of the real stars of the
> gathering. If nothing else, she was willing to ask questions that everybody
> else was assiduously avoiding. Would I do anything to stop such segregated
> gatherings? No -- but I guess I would hope that part of the learning curve
> for the Culturally Mature was coming to see that there are really better
> ways than hiding out in a room, talking to each other.
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
> Harrison Owen
> 7808 River Falls Dr.
> Potomac, MD  20854
> USA
> 301-365-2093
> 207-763-3261 (summer)
> website www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com><http://www.openspaceworld.com>
> Personal Website www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com><http://www.ho-image.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*  Peggy Holman <mailto:peggy at opencirclecompany.com><peggy at opencirclecompany.com>
>
> *To:* OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2006 8:26  PM
>
> *Subject:* Advanced Butterfly Behavior
>
>
>
>
>
> As I mentioned in my  last e-mail, now that I�m back after about a year
> away from the OS list, I�ve  got a variety of questions, stories and
> learnings to share over the next few  weeks.  This question popped to  the
> top of my list.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a situation  that I have now experienced twice in long OS
> gatherings with many experienced  OSers.  It is a dynamic that has an
> important and potentially dissonant  energy.  I'm wondering if others have
> encountered this and what their  thoughts are on it.  My suspicion is that
> we'll see more of it as more  people attend longer OS gatherings and
> generally develop more experience with  OS.
>
>
>
> My hunch is that this is  a phenomenon that deserves a name, much like
> bumblebees and butterflies.
>
>
>
> So, with that preamble,  here's the description and two specific examples:
>
>
>
> There's a session that  emerges from what is happening in the mix.  The
> convenor(s) have some  very specific people they wish to meet with and
> aren't interested in having it  open to whoever wanders in.  It is similar
> to what happens when  butterflies meet but because there is more
> intentionality and potentially  larger numbers, it is its own thing.
>
>
>
> Two  examples:
>
>
>
> At the April  Evolutionary Salon:
>
> We had an expert in a  process who was willing to do a session but he felt
> that his work required a  targeted group (in his terms, the "culturally
> mature").  We were  interested in experiencing this and quietly put the word
> out to the people we  wanted in the room.  When others also came, they were
>  welcomed.
>
>
>
> At the Practice of Peace  in 2003 and in her words:
>
> *On the last day of the  conference, I woke up with a clarity of what I
> should do if I really cared to  take this rare, international opportunity
> one step further into the  future.  I saw a session with  specific people
> (very engaged and personally interested, committed to the  theme I was
> passionate to explore, with very "concentrated energy" that I felt  was
> essential for a breakthrough in clarity and identifying what was  next.)
> *
>
>
> She was fine if others  appeared  but did not wish to  announce the
> session.  She pulled the post-it for the space from the  time/space grid and
> then quietly put out the word to the people she  had in mind.  Some of them
> came to the session and others chose to  go to other sessions. A few others
> appeared during the session and were  welcomed.  She created a session
> report an hour after the session was over. She had  intended to talk about
> the session and the  experimentation during the closing circle.  (For a
> variety of  unrelated reasons, that closing circle never quite happened, so
> this became  painful unfinished business for her.)In both cases, there was
>  some reflection by the hosts after the OS completed.  Some saw the
>  sessions as fine, appropriate butterfly behavior.  Others were disturbed
>  by the lack of transparency, feeling that it was a drag on the energy
>  field.
>
>
>
> I am reflecting that as  participants become very mature, posting such
> sessions, complete with a  mindful request about who comes is an ideal for
> this; also VERY challenging to  do!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
> _____________________________
> Peggy  Holman
> The Open Circle Company
> 15347 SE 49th Place
> Bellevue, WA   98006
> (425) 746-6274
>
>
>
>
> www.opencirclecompany.com <http://www.opencirclecompany.com><http://www.opencirclecompany.com>
>
>
>
>
> For pre-orders with a 20% discount on the new edition of  The Change
> Handbook, go to:
> www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook
> <http://www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook><http://www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook>
>
>
>
>
> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire  and not get
> burnt, is to become
> the fire".
>   -- Drew  Dellinger
> * *  ==========================================================
> 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
>



-- 
Love rays,
Tree Fitzpatrick

. . . the great and incalculable grace of love, which says, with Augustine,
"I want you to be," without being able to give any particular reason for
such supreme and unsurpassable affirmation.  -- Hannah Arendt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20060815/31d66daa/attachment-0016.htm>

More information about the OSList mailing list