[OSList] Open Space – 2013 and Beyond

Skye Hirst skyeh at autognomics.org
Fri Feb 1 08:50:24 PST 2013


I guess the next question is what does "literal"  mean? Skye


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:

> Skye,
>
> The first line is ironic, not literal. Forgive my English soul.
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/02/2013, Skye Hirst <skyeh at autognomics.org> wrote:
> > How fascinating!  You say it's a "thing" then continue to reflect that is
> > it a "process."  You might want to explore the different metaphysics of
> > each.  Quite different i think.  Heraclitus spoke of "becoming"  as more
> > alive than things which Plato wanted us to focus on,  the fixed ness of
> > that which we could touch, see over and over the same way so we could
> > examine it closely to know that it was "real"
> >
> > Yes,  it is a "self" process; self knowing, self referencing and
> > self-correcting.  This is not a thing in the old metaphysics.  Thanks for
> > your thoughtful comments. This is what they used to call "doing
> philosophy"
> > Skye
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, here's the whole thing...
> >>
> >> Open Space – 2013 and Beyond
> >>
> >>
> >> Be in no doubt, Open Space Technology is a thing. Harrison Owen
> >> specifically called (and continues to call) it a “technology”. It was a
> >> new
> >> technology designed to replace a tired old one. It was also called a
> >> technology at a time when, in management and organisational circles,
> >> facilitation methods and approaches were being called “technologies”;
> >> also
> >> “tools” and “”techniques” – more so in the United States than in the
> >> counties and cities of the United Kingdom. This particular technology
> was
> >> a
> >> way of conferencing and getting things done that was way better than
> >> over-fussy and over- formalised older “technologies”.
> >>
> >> It was a neat cultural reaction to a future being painted as robotic,
> >> with
> >> society’s problems being solved by things of steel, microchip and
> >> plastic.
> >> By embodying “softer” processes as “technologies” we had a viable
> >> alternative to plugging things into our nerve endings and veins. We
> could
> >> deploy alternative ways of doing things, ways of seeing the world, ways
> >> of
> >> behaving. If these could be presented simply, and if they could have a
> >> kind
> >> of enduring repeatability in different situations, then they would be
> >> viable alternatives to machines and “stuff”-based innovation. A potent
> >> and
> >> softer technology to allow us to ride the waves of change. Oh, and of
> >> course, it was a wonderful and simple alternative to over-structured,
> >> facilitator-heavy meeting process to boot!
> >>
> >> Open Space Technology is, therefore, presented as a fairly simple,
> >> resilient, and, most importantly, transferable and repeatable THING. It
> >> is
> >> something you sort of “switch on” and, to quote Harrison, it just about
> >> “always works”.
> >>
> >> This particular thing is a “technology” so applicable, timeless and
> >> repeatable, because it operates according to natural law. It is an
> >> expression, in process, of self-organisation.
> >>
> >> Open Space Technology isn’t self-organisation as much as
> >> self-organisation
> >> is Open Space.
> >>
> >> Now, there’s been a fair amount of discussion in recent years as to what
> >> self-organisation is, and Harrison Owen himself has dived into that
> >> exciting pool of thinking and dialogue-ing. I think we are very much at
> >> the
> >> beginning of understanding what self-organisation is. It certainly begs
> >> the
> >> question “what is the self in self-organisation?”. There are a range of
> >> different answers to this and, not surprisingly, they sit on that old
> >> cherry of a line that runs from material science to religion and faith.
> >> Open Space as a field has always attracted people who see it as an
> >> embodiment of natural science in social action through a practical proof
> >> and expression of the truth of self-organisation as an underlying
> natural
> >> law. It has also attracted its fair share of spiritual faithfuls who see
> >> it
> >> as a magical process for making spiritual potential real in the physical
> >> world. It has given birth to articles about biological self-organisation
> >> in
> >> human social systems, alongside articles about the power of “holding the
> >> space”, walking anticlockwise, and the gonging of Tibetan Bells. And
> also
> >> a
> >> fair number of people who see Open Space as uniting science and
> >> spirituality in a meeting process that proves both can sit alongside
> each
> >> other without too much conflict.
> >>
> >> Harrison Owen himself, when it suits him, expounds thousands of words on
> >> Open Space, how to do it, on self-organization, on wave-riding and so
> on.
> >> When others do the same, especially where attempts are made to elaborate
> >> the field, explore it, innovative or develop it, he often suggests that
> >> such thinking is a bit of a pointless exercise, and suggests we just go
> >> and
> >> “open some space”. It’s a charming, grandfatherly way to be, and I don’t
> >> mind it at all.
> >>
> >> As 2013 dawns, I’m convinced that Self-Organisation is Open Space. But I
> >> don’t buy the definition that seems to be emerging that the “self” in
> >> self-organisation doesn’t refer to individual human selves. It most
> >> certainly does. When we contemplate the world (or even universal)
> >> process,
> >> it is too easy to forget that we are contemplating ourselves as part of
> >> that world process. We don’t sit outside of the universe we are a part
> >> of.
> >> When I derive universal laws of nature, I am also deriving those as laws
> >> that flow through me. And yet there is also a process of observation by
> >> my
> >> self of my self that is then taking place. If I say, “this is true for
> >> the
> >> universe”, then I am also saying “this is true for me in the universe”.
> >> But
> >> I am also saying “My self is observing that this is true for me in the
> >> universe”. It’s the classic observer part of ourselves that observes our
> >> observing!
> >>
> >> There’s me (“I”), there’s the universe – and there’s also me in the
> >> universe and the universe in me.
> >>
> >> When we self-organise, we both organise as a collective self through
> >> community action (the collective circle) but we also observe into the
> >> circle from a standpoint that no one else in that circle can occupy. No
> >> one
> >> can be me. No one can refer to me as ‘I’ except for me! Of course
> there’s
> >> a
> >> danger that such an ego or self-focused view can turn into egotism,
> where
> >> the self is self-viewed as more important than any other self-views. But
> >> there’s also an opportunity to live what Rudolf Steiner described as a
> >> community life where, in the mirror of each human, the community finds
> >> its
> >> reflection and where, in the community, the virtues of each one is
> >> living.
> >>
> >> Self-organisation occurs when the self organises. In community it is a
> >> dual process of the self (the individual) observing into the circle from
> >> their unique standpoint and where, he or she, also imagines and reaches
> >> beyond that singular point, into the circle, a collective space, a
> >> community endeavour, where individual selves are also cells connecting
> >> into
> >> a large self-organising being.
> >>
> >> This happens sometimes so brilliantly in an improvisation troupe. We see
> >> moments of individual genius but also a contribution of each self to a
> >> bigger self – the group, and when this joins up and there is flowing
> >> collaboration, a synergy arises and the group performance is even
> >> greater,
> >> never quite explainable in terms of any individual performances.
> >>
> >> Yes, yes! The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts when the
> >> individual offers their self-part to become part of the community,
> >> allowing
> >> it to self-organise, beyond their own individual ego. We freely flow
> into
> >> the community, and no one knows or cares who, at that moment is blowing
> >> the
> >> wind. Equally, we step out of that circle and sing our own tune – the
> >> community self-organises, and sometimes we individually self-organise.
> >>
> >> Situations change, needs in communities and organisations change.
> >> Sometimes the lone voice is the only voice that needs to be heard.
> >> Sometimes the lone voice needs to quieten and listen to the circle.
> >> Sometimes a wonderful mess needs to ensue, a chaos for a while,
> sometimes
> >> it all needs to be neat.
> >>
> >> Open Space Technology brings lots of individual selves together and – in
> >> a
> >> way born of natural genius – creates a market place for selves to
> address
> >> themselves to a community need, and also for a community need to
> manifest
> >> in individual, group and even whole circle endeavour. Open Space is a
> >> wonderful bridge between individual and collective self. When it is
> truly
> >> flowing self-organisation is both individual and whole. The dynamic is
> >> musical, and often akin to dance – as dance that can been seen both on
> >> the
> >> stage and under a microscope, or even out in the starry heavens.
> >>
> >> But sometimes the technology needs adapting. For a very good and
> >> important
> >> reason that, ironically, lies deep at the heart of self-organisation
> >> itself. This is because, although nature itself reveals its laws as
> >> timeless, one little experiment in nature appears to elude that
> repeating
> >> consistency. To quote Steiner again, we will only really begin to
> >> understand the human self when we realise that each human being is a
> >> unique
> >> species of one. Each of us is a new universe, a new emergent day, every
> >> single second. There is no technology that can fully hold the space for
> >> our
> >> emerging selves. Self-organisation then needs to flex, flow and emerge
> >> with
> >> our own emerging mystery. For Open Space to embody a warm, loving truth,
> >> it
> >> has to expose itself to … open space. Open Space cannot sit outside of
> >> the
> >> emergent mystery of uniqueness. It may prove itself for a while as
> fairly
> >> resilient. But then it becomes dogmatic, rusty, nostalgic and even a bit
> >> sad. Self-organising open space technology has to be able include
> >> re-organising its-self!
> >>
> >> What are you scared of?
> >>
> >> Happy New Year,
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20130201/49b5ec45/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list