[OSList] self-organization

[Daniel Mezick]

Such a rich topic! Thanks to Marie Ann Östlund for opening this topic.

I am compelled to add the following words (verbatim) from RIGHTS OF MAN, 
by Thomas Paine. The book is quite an interesting read for folks like 
us. It tends to confirm and join with all of Harrison's key points.

My favorite quote in the book:
"...society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to 
government."

When he says [society] in the text, he means groups to people who are 
self-organizing, according to natural propensity.

The whole book is here, for free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2H_4_0007

Quoting below, from this specific section:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2HCH0001

Will you pardon my forwardness? I've taken the liberty of bolding a few 
words for emphasis:

"So far is it from being true, as has been *pretended*, that the 
abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that 
it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer 
together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to 
its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. 
When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, 
have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, *there is 
always enough of its principles in practice to carry them* through any 
changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their 
government. In short, *man is so naturally a creature of society* that 
it is almost impossible to put him out of it.

**

*"Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life*; and when 
even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing 
more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental 
principles of society and civilisation---to the common usage universally 
consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained---to the 
unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million 
channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man---it is to these 
things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted 
government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual 
and of the whole depends.

*"The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for 
government*, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, *and 
govern itself*; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to 
the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the 
proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that 
civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that 
whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect 
will be nearly the same.*If we consider what the principles are* that 
first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate 
their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we 
arrive at what is called government, that *nearly the whole of the 
business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each 
other. *

"Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of 
consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to 
believe. *All the great laws of society are laws of nature.* Those of 
trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of 
individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. 
They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties 
so to do, and *not on account of any formal laws their governments may 
impose or interpose. *


***





On 12/30/13 11:10 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> Marie -- I think you have it just right. But maybe you are making 
> things a little too complicated, and working a bit too hard. In my 
> simple mind, things look like this. First: All systems are self 
> organizing, even those we think we organize. Second: Organizing a self 
> organizing system is not only an oxymoron, but stupid -- especially 
> when the system can do a better job all by itself. Third: Whenever we 
> try to organize a self-organizing system, we inevitably get it wrong. 
> Our efforts are "clunky." Even though it may look great on paper, our 
> efforts are never subtle or flexible (agile) enough. Fourth: Open 
> Space is simply an invitation to self organize. In other words it is 
> simply an invitation to be and do what we are. The fact that it works 
> as it does has nothing to do with our knowing any philosophy, 
> principles, practices... It works as it has for 13.7 billion years, 
> long before we arrived on the scene, all without our help and 
> assistance. Fifth: the real value of OST is as a training program 
> enabling us to experience consciously and intentionally what all too 
> often passes by unnoticed -- Life. It is also a marvelous laboratory 
> in which we can learn more about our natural state. And oh yes -- all 
> the principles, philosophies, practices, etc are fun, interesting, and 
> useful to the extent that they help us to understand with greater 
> clarity what is really going on. But at the end of the day they really 
> don't change a thing. I think.
>
> ho
>
> Harrison Owen
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.
>
> Potomac, MD 20854
>
> USA
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
>
> Camden, Maine 04843
>
> Phone 301-365-2093
>
> (summer) 207-763-3261
>
> www.openspaceworld.com <www.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of 
> OSLIST Go 
> to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
> *From:*oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org 
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Marie 
> Ann Östlund
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:17 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* [OSList] self-organization
>
> 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

-- 

Daniel Mezick, President

New Technology Solutions Inc.

(203) 915 7248 (cell)

Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog 
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.

Examine my new book:The Culture Game 
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the 
Agile Manager.

Explore Agile Team Training 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>

Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20131230/2fb3cd2a/attachment-0008.htm>