[OSList] The OST Game

paul levy paul at cats3000.net
Tue Oct 15 12:58:39 PDT 2013


All possibly true. Possibly true also that the I is beautiful and may be
individual even as it doesn't have to be personal.
On 15 Oct 2013 20:27, "Harrison Owen" <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> Paul – well said! It is sadly true that most folks, certainly in the West,
> take the I (individual) as somehow isolate, separable, unattached. I guess
> that is supposed to make you feel better in terms of your personal power,
> ability to control, agency, meaning and such. But all of that doesn’t make
> much sense to me, and in fact seems to produce a result opposite to the
> expectation. In my experience, the more alone I am the less I have of all
> those things. Weird I guess. Paul Tillich, American theologian of some
> years ago writes at length of the “Self-World Correlation.” You don’t have
> a self without a world, nor do you have a world without selves. It is not
> one OR the other, but definitely a both/and. Dialectic, polar, all at once.
> Nice I always thought.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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:* Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:51 AM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game****
>
> ** **
>
> I mentioned before that perhaps we could take a deeper look at "self", in
> self-organisation. What if the self in self-organisation refers to the
> archetypal self in relation to mineral, plant and animal processes, but
> also refers to something else in relation to the human being. E.F
> Schumacher (author of Small is Beautiful), in his Guide for the Perplexed
> as well as Rudolf Steiner in his many works, refer to the mystery of the
> human "I". The I is the one little word that can only be self-referred. No
> one else can express my I in terms of my "self" but me.****
>
> ** **
>
> Self-organisation in human social processes may refer to both the
> self-organising processes of nature AND (please not "and") and unique
> emergent mystery of the self of each one of us. Self-organisation is then
> both a macrocosmic and a microcosmic process in tandem. In myth these were
> the Apollonian (from core to periphery) and Dionysian (from self to core)
> paths. Self-organisation, when space opens is both the collective community
> "fitting" the evolutionary flow and also the more or less free I-self being
> uniquely creative. Steiner suggested that every human being is a unique
> species of one. Self-organisation becomes both a symphony and a melody, a
> patterning and an emergence of improvisation.****
>
> ** **
>
> "Self" contains a dual mystery: the emergent self-organisation of the
> world process AND the emergent singing of each of our own unique songs.
> Each song, played into by the whole, also changes the whole through the
> freedom of individual flow.****
>
> ** **
>
> When space opens, two things can occur - self-organisation and
> Self-organisation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, it's complicated it. It's only simple when we omit the unique puzzle
> of each human "I". For that is a jigsaw of infinite pieces.****
>
> ** **
>
> warm wishes****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> On 15 October 2013 11:59, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:****
>
> Dan said: : “what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior?” Good
> question indeed. Stuart Kaufmann (Biologist) says that one of the
> conditions for self organization is what he calls, “The search for
> fitness.” I take this to be a modification of Darwin’s “Survival of the
> fittest.” The idea is that self organizing systems engage in a search for
> ways to enhance the way they fit with the environment and fit together
> internally. Those most fully aligned with the environment, with all their
> parts engaged tend to survive. Works for me.****
>
>  ****
>
> 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 *Daniel Mezick
> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 5:51 PM
> *To:* oslist at lists.openspacetech.org****
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game****
>
>  ****
>
> I'm loving the richness of this conversation. I'm loving it so much!
>
> One question that comes up for me repeatedly, as I read and ponder the
> responses to OST-as-game: what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing
> behavior? Is the question even worth answering? If so, why so? If not, why
> not?
>
> Where do I go, with this line of reasoning? Here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology****
>
> On 10/14/13 4:53 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:****
>
> Paul – Can always count on you. Thanks****
>
>  ****
>
> ho****
>
>  ****
>
> 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<oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *paul levy
> *Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 4:48 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game****
>
>  ****
>
> Harrison ****
>
>  ****
>
> Whatever you experienced as OST when it first escaped has largely become a
> game. A game of training. A game of "go back to base and read the manual".
> Even you play a regular game on here as one of the elders who keep
> defending OST against change (oh yes you do). It's become a game with a
> book of instructions with bells, anti-clockwise circle walking and "rules".
> That's a shame and, thankfully, fairly pointless as it keeps on escaping in
> different and lovely ways anyway.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now, opening space, that's something really worth trying... ****
>
>  ****
>
> (Waits as the usual elders line up to deliver their wise pronouncements)...
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> So it goes.****
>
>  ****
>
> Paul Levy****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> On Monday, 14 October 2013, Harrison Owen wrote:****
>
> A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a good cause,
> I hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the assigned material
> about broken reality and culture hacking. Interesting journey! And along
> the way I came upon an odd realization – I really just don’t like games!
> Seems it had something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just
> loved games, and she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well. Unfortunately
> that aversion carried on into my adult life, particularly as it related to
> the so called Group Dynamics games that we were all supposed to play prior
> to serious discussion. Seems like you just couldn’t have an adult
> interchange without some “warm-up” to break the ice. Or so they said.
> Really bugged me. I just couldn’t believe that consenting adults could not
> communicate without some elaborate foreplay – funny tools drawn from the
> omnipresent Facilitator’s Tool Box.****
>
>  ****
>
> So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be
> something of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that given
> reasonable conditions, human beings could sit down and talk productively
> with each other – all by themselves. As adults. It did take two martinis to
> get me there... but “there” was (guess what) Open Space.  We have been
> doing that ever since, and it turns out that children do just as well. ***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother, Facilitators,
> etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and experience it has
> become clearer and clearer that the less I do the better things work. It is
> not that I have no agency or contribution, but it does turn out that the
> ambient wisdom and capacity of the individuals and groups that I am
> privileged to interact with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very
> well to fold my hands and shut my mouth. Anything else has me working much
> too hard, and generally messing things up... Such are the eye glasses
> through which I view my world. Distorted perhaps, and different for sure,
> but I’m stuck with it. And it is through those glasses that I read my
> assignments, beginning with “Reality is Broken.” ****
>
>  ****
>
> Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me) world of
> Game Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly understand why she has
> created a stir, and I applaud her massive research and clear prose. That
> said, my reaction was close to horror, and the thought that the world and
> techniques she describes should become a model and a means to fix our world
> was pretty close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to my
> aforementioned phobia – but I suspect that others might share such
> feelings. Two points stand out in my mind—Gaming is addictive, a point she
> develops in infinite detail, and secondly that good Game Makers actually
> capitalize on this phenomenon and make every effort to enhance the
> addictive power.  Their success is obvious and awesome. It seems that one
> massive, online game attracted 5,000,000 man/years of attention. George
> Orwell, where are you now that we need you?****
>
>  ****
>
> I joke a bit – and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says, “Reality is
> Broken,” I feel constrained to ask, Who’s reality? Not mine, for sure. It
> is not that I experience every day as a walk in the park, but there have
> been precious few moments when I have felt bored, without challenge,
> non-productive and unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and
> colleagues around the world who seemingly have a similar experience.
> Doubtless that makes us odd, perhaps aberrant, but there is a certain
> consolation in numbers. We are not alone. ****
>
>  ****
>
> When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my reality
> they include such things as the indeterminacy of my surroundings. The
> moment I think I know where it is all headed, I am confounded by the twists
> of happenstance. Then there is the total lack of clarity when it comes to
> goals and objectives. Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about
> every time I have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn’t turn out
> that way – usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I
> certainly have never found them. Of course there are moments when I think
> it is all a dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But even that has
> its positive: I know I am alive. So for me, my reality is doing just fine.
> Exciting, challenging, growthful, rewarding -- In fact it seems to be
> working perfectly.****
>
>  ****
>
> I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if reality
> for them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it? Or could it be
> that it isn’t really broken, they just think it is, if only because it
> doesn’t measure up to their expectations. That would certainly be the case
> if reality was *supposed* to work by clear cut rules, heading in a
> pre-determined direction, always under somebody’s control. That
> understanding of reality is certainly alternate to anything I know anything
> about. It just never happened, and if it did I believe it would be
> unendingly boring. But that might account for the Game Maker’s success –
> for if I read Jane correctly, that is pretty much the reality they create.
> And if that is the reality you want, no wonder people spend 5 million
> man/years immersed in it!****
>
>  ****
>
> And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not according
> to Jane’s rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a correlation with Jane’s
> first criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self Selection, and  a second one
> relating to Good Feedback (we might say documentation). But it seems to me
> it all goes downhill from there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I
> have yet to encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law,
> but none of them are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to emerge
> no matter what you do – all by themselves. As for a clear goal, I think you
> have precisely the opposite. Everything begins with a question, and under
> the best of circumstances there is no attachment to outcomes. As we say,
> Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.****
>
>  ****
>
> Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game – what is it?****
>
>  ****
>
> Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation...****
>
>  ****
>
> OST... is ... Life. ****
>
>  ****
>
> It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending revelation. In
> fact it doesn’t DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and quietly invites us to
> be, fully, what we already are – ourselves. It really is shocking. Just be
> yourself as you really are. Drawn by a question (Quest) – you are invited
> to explore what you really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior
> exclusions (givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be
> yourself and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do
> you really care about? And if you care, take responsibility for what you
> care about. Nobody else will. And you don’t need an act of Congress,
> Parliament, the Legislature, or the writings of the latest Guru. It’s just
> you. ****
>
>  ****
>
> But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in the
> assumed responsibility? In advance you simply don’t know, nor can you
> predict. But when it happens, you know it happens. Life not only goes on –
> it gets deeper and richer with the shared passions and responsibilities
> that weave the rich tapestry of the human odyssey.****
>
>  ****
>
> I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears re-singing.
> The temptation to change this simple invitation into some complex process,
> procedure, structure is almost overwhelming, driven I am sure by our hope
> to improve and also  perhaps to make it something we own or do. Something
> that requires the professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the
> matter, I believe, is that there really isn’t anything to improve and still
> less to do. Above all, Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, and always think of
> one less thing to do.****
>
>  ****
>
> So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more exactly the
> relationship between the two? Closely united, I believe – but perhaps not
> in the way that Dan and others seem to be suggesting, even though that way
> appears to be eminently rational and definitely a good plan.****
>
>  ****
>
> I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is an
> elegant set of principles which await implementation (adoption) through
> some method or process, SCRUM for example. The principles are magnificent
> and represent the latest iteration of a longish tradition beginning perhaps
> with Quality Circles, and passing through Excellent Organizations (Tom
> Peters et al), Learning Organizations, with possibly a side trip through
> Process Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures, and
> protocols were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into everyday
> practice. In every case the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the several
> efforts was considerable (aided I suspect by the fat consulting fees that
> could be generated). And in every case I believe we learned many useful
> lessons. However, in terms of the desired outcome, which might be described
> as “enhanced organizational function,” I think the record is less than
> positive. Only people of a certain age will even remember Quality Circles,
> Excellent Organizations seem evident mostly by their absence, The Society
> of Organizational Learning disbanded last year, and Process Engineering has
> been retired by general consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane
> McGonigal may just have written the epitaph, “Reality is Broken.” Whether
> Agile and its several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a
> similar fate remains to be seen.****
>
>  ****
>
> Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and
> accomplish so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but one stands
> out for me. We’ve been trying to organize self organizing systems. This is
> a thankless task if only because we will never get it right; the systems
> involved (our businesses, countries, organizations) are so complex,
> inter-related, and fast moving that we can’t even think at that level – let
> alone effectively structure and control them. Even worse it seems all too
> often that our best efforts and intentions make the situation worse – our
> fixes end up with painful unintended consequences. But worst of all our
> efforts are not needed because the system itself, all by itself, can do a
> better job.  Frankly our efforts are just plain clunky.****
>
>  ****
>
> It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been less
> than successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but not by
> facilitating the adoption Agile as a set of principles, but in a much more
> immediate and direct fashion: by enabling Agility. The principles are
> definitely nice, but what we truly care about is real, meaningful,
> organizational agility, which others might call High Performance, and Open
> Space demonstrably delivers on that score. My favorite story, of course is
> the AT&T design team for the ’96 Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed
> a $200,000,000 structure which had taken them 10 months on a previous
> effort. That is a 15,000% increase in productivity. Not bad. ****
>
>  ****
>
> If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be
> interesting but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how does all
> that work? It is just a well functioning self organizing system. And if you
> ask whether it is all scalable – the answer is it is already scaled to the
> highest levels. Been around for 13.7 billion years, and the Cosmos (along
> with everything else) is the product. Don’t adopt Agile, BE agile.
> Honestly, it is a natural condition if we stop trying to fix it. ****
>
>  ****
>
> So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain’t broke and
> serious Agility is available any time we want to open the space to let it
> happen. And if you were wondering who all those friends and colleagues
> around the world who know that their reality is unbroken (albeit painful
> sometimes) you can start by looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about
> all those folks who have wandered into Open Space to discover, many times
> in spite of themselves – that deep, meaningful, productive, playful,
> respectful encounters with their fellows can and do happen. That is just a
> taste, of course – but it can happen all the time -- 24X7. I know.****
>
>  ****
>
> Harrison****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Harrison Owen****
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.****
>
> Potomac, MD 20854****
>
> *From:*****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> 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****
>
>  ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Daniel Mezick, President****
>
> New Technology Solutions Inc.****
>
> (203) 915 7248 (cell)****
>
> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>.
> Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>. ****
>
> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game
> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the Agile
> Manager.****
>
> Explore Agile Team Training<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/>and
> Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>****
>
> Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>
> Community. ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131015/04648fac/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list