[OSList] Open Space - 2013 and Beyond

Wed Feb 6 01:19:16 PST 2013

So, let me share this wonderful quote from a wonderful man with two
wonderful faces:

"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." (HO)

And, once again, a bit of impishness. Yes, yes, you do have to experience
to be a useful part of the game! And critique and the sharing of it is ALSO
experience. Part of my own observation of my experience of the open space
community is the lack of experience of critique. ""The only way we can grow
our knowledge is to share and critique our experience ".

Delighted!

Paul

On 5 February 2013 18:14, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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 <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 *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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130206/d27db7c1/attachment-0008.htm>