[OSList] Open Space - 2013 and Beyond

Tue Feb 5 10:14:38 PST 2013

Marie – “Why does Self Organization work?” That is a wonderful question, for
which I don’t think anybody has an answer. I think we do know pretty clearly
what the essential pre-conditions are (which serendipitously are a lot like
the necessary conditions for OS) – and I think we do know a lot about some
of the basic mechanisms. In the biological sphere, thanks to Darwin, we can
point to things like Natural Selection and Sexual selection, for two. But
how it all fits together is a gorgeous mystery, I think. Then when we get to
thoughts about an infinity of Selves over time/space and beyond, to which we
might add Alternative Universes and such like, the possibilities become
truly wondrous to say nothing of mind blowing. But what all this might have
to do with Open Space Technology and the eminently practical business of
enabling Human Beings to more effectively and productively engage each other
may seem rather a stretch to many people. I can certainly understand the
feelings, but I personally think the connections are there, and that they
are nontrivial – therefore important.

The 28 year experience with OST can be seen as an incredible sequence of
useful meetings, all the product of a curious process. This is certainly
true as far as it goes, but an alternate view is perhaps more interesting,
at least to me. In this view, OST has become a rich natural experiment or
perhaps better, a natural laboratory, in which to study the mechanisms and
possibilities of human behavior. For those with a narrow view of science and
Standard Lab procedure, there are obvious difficulties with such a view. It
wasn’t planned, it had no careful experimental controls, and data collection
has been episodic at best. All true, but numbers (200,000-300,000 iterations
/136 countries) and duration (28 years) do count for something when the
results have been consistent – which is the case. And those results have
been both interesting and disturbing, at least disturbing to the
conventional wisdom.

For openers, the experience in the OS Lab (if I can call it that) serves to
challenge essentially all of the core principles and practices of Meeting
Management and Management itself. Contrary to accepted beliefs, you can
forget the careful meeting design and agenda preparation, eliminate the
tight controls and multiple facilitators, cancel participant training as
preparation for “Effective Group Work,” scratch conflict mediation efforts –
and still have a positive, and usually better result. As the VP for
Professional Development at ASTD once said to me, “If what you describe is
actually true then 99% of what we are currently doing doesn’t need to be
done.” He was right. Definitely a new world, but that is just the beginning,
I think.

More disturbing, or from my viewpoint – more delicious – are the more subtle
phenomena in Open Space: a profound sense of unity not only with fellow
participants, but somehow with the world and worlds beyond, an experience of
awe which reduces conversation to rich silence, a unique and positive
experience of selfhood, not in isolation but in community with one’s
fellows, a warm feeling of joy which doesn’t seem to come from anywhere, but
manifests everywhere, a flow of wordless communication that enfolds, an
awareness of spirit/Spirit – or whatever you might choose to call it. I
don’t have a clue how you would quantify any of this, and truly don’t care
for the moment. And not everybody will consciously experience such phenomena
in every Open Space. But I believe it fair to say that, were you to pole our
colleagues with multiple OS’s under their belt, they would generally confirm
my list and doubtless add to it.

Given the experiences described above it is quite understandable that people
might see Open Space as a spiritual, esoteric, or religious phenomenon. For
some this is a positive affirmation and for others it is pejorative. No
matter the final judgment, it is undoubtedly true that everyone would agree
that all such experiences are normally associated with the realm of Spirit,
even if they question that such a realm exists.

It is all too easy to slip into an “either/or” sort of argument. Either
Spirit OR Practical. I don’t see much future in that sort of conversation.
Both/and better fits my style and inclinations. Actually I find that this
perceived dichotomy to be a marvelous introduction to a better and deeper
question all about the boundary, or our definition of the boundary, between
Spirit and practical world.  I think it is more than possible that once
again the realities we confront simply overwhelm our (current) capacity to
think and talk about them. But what else is new? What  is needed is a frame
of reference, theory or concept that includes it all. Truly a Grand Theory
of Everything.  I see little possibility at the moment of achieving such a
synthesis, but making the effort can only be a marvelous adventure.

We do have some clues about how the journey might unfold. 150 years ago,
Physicists and just about everybody else took it as “settled fact” that
matter and energy were separate and distinct entities. After all a rock
could never be confused with a lightning bolt. Then along came Albert,
thinking strange thoughts in the Swiss Patent Office and suddenly that world
view imploded – E=MC2    No matter what it might look like, it was all
energy. Although some of it was moving faster. And things got even weirder
with time slowing and space bending. Obviously we are still trying to digest
all of that – but no question the world is not what we used to think it was.

So the conversation is under way, but it is way too early for final
conclusions. I believe our common experience with Open Space can provide
useful reference points for our thinking, but there is one thing of which I
am totally certain – whatever “answers” we finally reach will be nothing
like what we expected. And that just makes it fun. Definitely “Open Space –
2013 and Beyond.” In the interim we have a lot to do – with much space to
open. When Paul Levy accused me of being a little “two faced” – writing a
whole bunch all the while insisting that we “Just do it” I took that as a
complement. The only way we can grow our knowledge is to share and critique
our experience – but you have to have the experience (Open Space) to be a
useful part of the game. 

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 

www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST
Go to:
<http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org>
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: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:30 AM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] Open Space - 2013 and Beyond

Harrison, that assumes that selves are only humans, i.e. a physical/human
conception of the self. I see it differently. I see a self in a tree, in a
bird, in a bacteria. Where there is life, we see a desire for life, and that
desire is a symptom of a self. 

So for billions of years, selves have self-organised to keep life going, to
connect, to fulfil its desires. Self-organisation is what life does.

I'm glad we're having this conversation as it helps us define the basic
terms we're using. Or to understand from what conceptual universe we're
coming from.

Btw Paul, I'm definitely older than you :p 

Marie Ann

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20130205/0bfec6b1/attachment-0008.htm>