[OSList] self-organization

Skye Hirst skyeh at autognomics.org
Mon Dec 30 07:55:37 PST 2013


So  beautiful - thanks for posting this - there are so many great insights
here>   Skye


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Marie Ann Östlund <
marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the
> opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year.
>
> I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or holding
> the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the concept and the
> way we've talked about it. But this autumn the penny dropped (!) for me (to
> some extent) and I could also understand why I make the connections I do
> with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why others don't make that same
> connection.
>
> I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand this,
> and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning - it's a bit
> long.
>
> Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that exemplified
> some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave me the perfect cue
> to put my thoughts together (Thank you!):
>
> "And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that these
> folks (whoever they are...) are already “in” Open Space. They are just
> doing it badly. Your “offer” is simply to help them to do what they are
> already doing – but now with some understanding, expertise, and style.
> Short take: you can help them to remember what they already know, and
> having remembered, to do everything much better."
>
> I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are already
> "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly.
>
> If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger
> "organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars,
> peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families, teams,
> etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization. Some are to
> our liking, some are not.
>
> Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful and
> some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the self-organization done
> "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST *work*, as we sometimes
> put it?
>
> The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences lies in
> the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In simpler or
> smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer than in larger ones
> (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the macro level, countries
> organize themselves based on certain principles - like one of the
> foundational principles of the US is the freedom to *be* religious and
> freedom *from* the state (from Britain and its monarchy), while in France
> freedom *from* religion is foundational and influence what citizens are
> allowed to learn and wear in school or say in the public sphere, and in
> Sweden the state (or previously the monarchy) have historically been the
> guarantor and protector of individual freedom (against the aristocracy). An
> even greater and deeper organizing principle we've adopted in the western
> hemisphere is the idea of progress - that our societies invariably progress
> through scientific and technological advances. And yes, all these ideas,
> although found articulated by some powerful philosophers, are in a sense a
> product of self-organization. However interesting the ideas, they would go
> nowhere if people didn't accept/adopt/spread them or felt they resonated
> with their own ideas and experiences. The way ideas evolve and spread are
> certainly complex.
>
> I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the
> complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and organise
> our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one may call them
> organizing principles. A company can have organizing principle/s - there
> are differences between how General Motors and Apple are organized and what
> define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A family also have organizing
> principles (who's the boss, how decisions are made etc).
>
> What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing
> principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two
> feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European Learning
> Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to some extent -
> sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law and market place,
> off you go, evening and morning updates, closing circle etc. If it's Open
> Space, why keep to these rules as we often come back to doing OST in a
> certain way. Why do we (religiously) adhere to a certain format when doing
> OST - at least this is how I interpret the query hearing about it second
> hand.
>
> However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's
> done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows
> self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we create
> a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it. The principles
> help us free our minds enough to be present with what's happening (and most
> importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the organising principle -
> follow your heart (and use your feet to do so). Take responsibility for
> what you love.
>
> What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel alive,
> we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at what is
> created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken to another
> level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we create when we
> come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We love and feel
> loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad' feelings in OS or
> don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me) that's often to do with
> us not following our hearts as fully as we would like to or we're in the
> messy chaotic part in our organizing process.
>
> So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being. It
> says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love
> contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than us, and
> we thrive when we're connected.
>
> My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take
> responsibility for what you love) is an organising principle that is closer
> to our human nature than many other organizing-principles. That's why it
> *works*. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent, and selfish as
> Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the basic organizing
> principles in international relations (more or less). One of the reasons
> some systems work better is that the organising principles are more fitting
> to our needs and natures. And some may have worked for some time but no
> longer does, as they have grown too rigid or not kept up with
> time/development. They might have helped us from a worse condition, but not
> fully hit home.
>
> To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as
> facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble is
> created within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use rituals to
> communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in a different way
> than others. We show physically that we're doing something else here than
> in other systems, by sitting in a circle, going around it, etc. Rituals are
> powerful. If all system would use the same organizing principle these
> rituals might no longer matter, or they would adopt the same.
>
> To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some
> principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation that
> works better than most as its organising principle is closer to human
> nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human nature isn't
> done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning. Sorry :)
>
> But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image of
> dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can also
> look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with the soul
> (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic perspective is
> also the personal or individual view point, of what the dance can be that
> we create together in love and in relationship to each other. And that
> might tell a different story about who we are.
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what makes
> sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you.
>
> All the best,
>
> Marie Ann
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>


-- 
*Skye Hirst, PhD*
President - The Autognomics Institute
*Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself*
www.autognomics.org
@autognomics

New Phone Number:
207-593-8074
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20131230/4e9c4763/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list