doing self-organization

[Harrison Owen]

Raffi Wrote: " Might offering just the self-org theory as the *only* likely
story of os close the space a wee bit for other likely stories?"

Raffi -- I supose you could be right if I had said in some fashion that
Self-organization theory was the official dogma -- none other allowed. But
such a statement would be 180 degrees from my intention and and totally
contrary to everything that I think, believe, and (hopefully) live. 

The first thing to understand is that it (SOT) is a theory, a likely story
of how things work. As the theory has emerged under various names (chaos
theory, complexity theory, complex adaptive theory) in the past several
decades it has grown infinitely deeper and richer -- which is to say that it
has been in constant change, but it does seem to be headed more or less in
one direction. My statement was that FOR ME self-organization theory
represented the best theoretical structure in which I could make sense out
of what happens in OS. Could there be others? Of course. Will there be
others? Absolutely. And all of that will emerge over time as part of an
ongoing conversation amongst those who care -- which includes lots of people
who have never heard of OS. But I think we have some unique contributions to
make to the conversation, because we have been part of what I can only call
the Open Space Experiment, in which (as I would see it)we have consciously
and intentionally lived and worked in a self-organizing mode.

So my real intent was invitation -- invitation to the conversation about
what we are doing, what it means, how it works, and why. As with all good
conversations, I think it should be pursued with intencity -- which on
occasion may be perceived as certainty. But that certainty/intencity, so far
as I am concerned, is only part of the story telling / theory building
process. Wimpy story telling does not go very far -- but every good story
teller always knows that the story can be told differently, and the best
story tellers are constantly searching for better ways to tell it. 

We are all pretty new at this both in terms of Open Space as well as the
theory of self-organizations, so it is sometimes instructive to see what
happens in other areas, for example Physics. Physicists tell their stories
with great intencity and much passion. And if you listen to any moment of
the conversation, it may sound like pure dogma -- but it is actually an
ongoing invitation to make the stories better. At the moment it seems like
we have three stories (at least): Newtonian, Quantum, and String Theory. To
ask which one is true is miss the point. Theories are never true or false,
in some absolute sense -- they are always just ways of talking about things.
They become "good theories" when they are descriptive and predictive -- they
accurately describe what is going on, and help us to understand what might
happen in the future. But it is all part of a conversation. 

About this time you might be wondering whether we really have to go through
all this stuff. Why not just "do" Open Space? That works too, in the same
way that cold beer and the refrigerator works. To get a cold beer, I simply
have to open the door and pop the top. Viola -- Cold Beer! Do I really have
to understand (talk about) all of the intricacies of refrigeration
mechanics, fluid dynamics, the botany of beer making? No! Unless I want to
make better beer. . .

Harrison   


Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, Maryland   20854
Phone 301-365-2093
Skype hhowen
Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com 
Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website www.ho-image.com 
OSLIST: To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives Visit: www.listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html


-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Raffi
Aftandelian
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:32 PM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: doing self-organization

Harrison,

When Michael writes he isn't a fan of the self-org story, I think about
keeping the creative potential in keeping space open for our understanding
of open space. Self-org is a very convincing story. And our as our world is
changing very quickly so will our understanding of open space. 

Might offering just the self-org theory as the *only* likely story of os
close the space a wee bit for other likely stories?

Who knows what those other likely stories might be, but I'd bet that in the
next 10-20 years we're going to hear some other pretty compelling ones.
Guess we'll have to stay tuned...to the bass note <silly grin> ?

[Hi to all in Kiev/Kyiv! I guess if  you're nervous, Jo, that must be a good
sign!]

Warmly,
Raffi

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