[OSList] Open Space - 2013 and Beyond

[paul levy]

Marie and Harrison

I think the question "why does self-organisation work" is such a strong one
and well worth exploring. I also connect to your notion that "selves" love
to each towards each other. The following quote comes to mind:

"We realise ourselves through those around us; they speak to us through our
questions of them."

I'm also fairly sure that we - as selves - have all been around even longer
than the big bang, Harrison. I might even be older than you.

Paul


On 4 February 2013 22:35, Marie Ann Östlund <marieann.ostlund at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thank you Paul for starting this interesting thread.
>
> Harrison writes:
>
> "I called it a “puckish” question (maybe “impish” would be better) if only
> because it represents a delightful misstatement of the usual understanding
> of “self” in the phrase “self organization,” which of course has nothing to
> do with “selves” per se, but rather the perceived fact that organization
> takes place all on its own – all by itself. But your twist is all to a
> greater purpose, I believe: Driving straight to a really juicy question –
> Who are we in a self organizing world?"
>
> We may also ask: why does self-organisation work? What is the impetus for
> self-organisation? And the answer to that question may help us towards a
> more subtle understanding of the self - not as a lone ranger in competition
> with the world and other selves, but as a connected self (or a self
> striving for connection) that enjoys giving, loving, contributing to the
> whole - the both/and *personal* satisfaction of being connected to the *
> whole*. We self-organise because we love it. That's what inspires me in
> open space.
>
> Otherwise, I have a hard time with the idea that self-organisation happens
> entirely by its own, almost like a chemical process. Take away stuff that
> stops self/organisation and whoops - self-organisation happens. Yes, it
> does happen, but why? Just saying - it does - does not really satisfy me.
> Could it be that it has something to do with what we are as selves? Could
> it be that we as selves want to connect and contribute, that we as selves
> are loving beings after all. It may very much have to do with the self bit
> in self-organisation.
>
> "People will say that they never have felt so valued and respected for who
> and what they are (individual selves) – and simultaneously remark on the
> intense experience of community to the point that the difference of selves
> is hardly noticeable, and sometimes simply disappears. All one flowing
> whole. That is the dance. That is self organization at work, I think."
>
> Exactly. The perfect dance between being a self in the world, and the
> world in the self :) Thank you.
>
> All the best,
>
> Marie Ann
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul – thank you for re-posting your blog here on OSLIST. I truly enjoyed
>> and learned from your thinking because it represents the sort of sensitive
>> probing necessary for beginning to understand the funny thing we have
>> called Open Space Technology, and the infinitely deeper reality of Self
>> Organization. As for your puckish question, “What is the ‘self’ in Self
>> Organization?” – Marvelous. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I called it a “puckish” question (maybe “impish” would be better) if only
>> because it represents a delightful misstatement of the usual understanding
>> of “self” in the phrase “self organization,” which of course has nothing to
>> do with “selves” per se, but rather the perceived fact that organization
>> takes place all on its own – all by itself. But your twist is all to a
>> greater purpose, I believe: Driving straight to a really juicy question –
>> Who are we in a self organizing world?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There are some folks who seem to think that a self organizing world
>> annihilates the self – that it somehow eradicates our own unique identity
>> and agency. We are pawns in a larger game, and very helpless pawns. The end
>> of such thinking seems to lie in one of two spots. Either we are just the
>> flotsam and jetsam in an unfeeling ocean with little to be or do – OR --
>> the whole thing is non-sense. Ann Rand lives, and the notion of self
>> organization is simply the product of an overactive, collectivist  plot.*
>> ***
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I suspect that neither of these conclusions is valid, although both have
>> a contribution to make. At issue is our propensity for either/or thinking,
>> when both/and is much more effective in this situation. Not to be opaque –
>> it is common to think of the “self” and the “organization” as two separate
>> entities, which should never be confused or combined. To do so is to
>> destroy both. There is a degree of comfort here, if only because I am I –
>> and all those other poor blokes (the organization) can do what they bloody
>> well want to! The preservation of the Self as an island fortress may be a
>> comfort– but I don’t find it to be all that useful or accurate in the long
>> run. It is more about both/and.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Put somewhat differently Self and Organization are, in my view, polar
>> concepts, and integrally related; you can’t have one without the other. In
>> the world of philosophy this is often referred to as the self/world
>> correlation, which means simply that you never had a self apart from a
>> world/organization and *vice versa.*  This may seem a little obtuse, but
>> I think we would all agree that you have never seen an organization that
>> was not composed of selves. And the reverse is also true. Sounds a little
>> strange maybe, but if I ask you who you are you will reply in some
>> language, and if English that will tell me that one organization you are
>> part of is the Anglophone world. And the likelihood is that you will
>> continue with something like, “I am an engineer, at IBM – or whatever. Self
>> and World in polarity.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Things get more dynamic, some might say sloppy, from this point on.
>> Both/and thinking is a way (certainly not the only way) of thinking/talking
>> about a dance between two poles. In this case Self and Organization. “We”
>> (as individuals or collectives) are neither one and always on the way to
>> the other. Kind of boggles the mind and maybe a needless sophistry – but
>> begins to capture an experience we all share: Open Space.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Over the years of Open Space, I have noticed in myself and in the reports
>> of fellow participants an odd contradiction which is actually a paradox.
>> People will say that they never have felt so valued and respected for who
>> and what they are (individual selves) – and simultaneously remark on the
>> intense experience of community to the point that the difference of selves
>> is hardly noticeable, and sometimes simply disappears. All one flowing
>> whole. That is the dance. That is self organization at work, I think.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> It is surely fun to think and share, particularly when we reach the edges
>> of our certainty and the power of our expression. I do love this crazy
>> OSLIST! And if that makes me Grandfatherly, Paul – so be it. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Harrison   ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20> ****
>>
>> www.ho-image.com <http://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 *paul levy
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2013 8:14 AM
>> *To:* OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>> *Subject:* [OSList] Open Space – 2013 and Beyond****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Start by doing what’s necessary; then do what’s possible; and suddenly
> you are doing the impossible." ~ Saint Francis of Assisi
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130205/cb715d19/attachment-0008.htm>