[OSList] Open Space - 2013 and Beyond

[JL Walker]

So, what is the correct abbreviation:

OS, OST, OSP, OSTP, OSPT?

Where:

O: Open
S: Space
T: Technology
P: Process

Or all is thing of your particularly point of view?

Cheers,

Juan Luis

-----Mensaje original-----
De: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
[mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] En nombre de Jeff Aitken
Enviado el: viernes, 01 de febrero de 2013 16:48
Para: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Asunto: Re: [OSList] Open Space – 2013 and Beyond

Some more of the story to offer: I learned Open Space in 1989, before it was
widely called a 'technology' - and I was (and still am) reluctant to add the
T.

The first uses of the T word were somewhat lighthearted and a little bit
ironic, given how low-tech is the process. Harrison's friend in India was
indeed "playing up" the legitimacy of the process to the journalists, for
whom he added the T to the OS at that fateful business conference.

But once the T was in published books, it became a case of the "brand"
taking on a life of its own, and then NOT using the T could risk confusion,
in a time when these processes are not easily distinguishable to folks who
are not trained in the distinctions.

I still risk the confusion, call it "open space process" and take the T very
lightly, as useful as the T may be.

onward...

Jeff
San Francisco



On 2/1/13, Skye Hirst <skyeh at autognomics.org> wrote:
> 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.o
>> >> rg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-----
Se certificó que el correo no contiene virus.
Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es
Versión: 2013.0.2890 / Base de datos de virus: 2639/6070 - Fecha de la
versión: 31/01/2013