[OSList] self-organization

Tue Feb 4 07:46:45 PST 2014

Just watching a wonderful video that addresses at some level what you are
pointing to, I believe.
Richard Barrett - a Values Based Nation  talk .  http:/livestre.am/4n9fV
Eager to further a conversation on this talk.  Thanks Marie Ann  Skye

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Marie Ann Östlund <
marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps, David! And that's what I was suggesting in my first post. I do
> think we all are spirit and that spirit itself is loving - and spirit is
> within bees too! Or we can call spirit life, or life-force.
>
> But before I continue, I want to thank everyone that have engaged with
> this question and apologise for not having responded to or continued to
> engage with it. I needed to withdraw. I will go over your responses and
> texts again to see where I am with it. Life also got too busy.
>
> Following on - either we think life creates 'life' in the sense of
> perceived consciousness, and we perceive consciousness in all that is
> alive. Or we think consciousness is a product of matter, a product of all
> the complicated synapses that occur in the bodies of living beings. There
> might be more ways to understand this, of course, but this is what I
> understand.
>
> However, it doesn't matter (to me) if we believe matter comes from spirit,
> or that spirit comes from matter - what matters (to me) is that many
> institutions (systems) are built upon the idea that we're selfish,
> egoistical beings.
>
> One of the foundational stories about human beings in our western culture
> is that humans are evil/sinful or simply selfish and greedy. The driving
> force has been selfishness in some form or other, whether we believe it
> should be curbed or encouraged (as the motor for evolution). But I think
> research is increasingly showing that nature is driven by adaptation to our
> environment and cooperation. And I believe that that is what OST shows us
> too.
>
> What I have tried to say is that OST is an experience where participants
> can experience themselves and others as constructive and even loving beings
> - in contrast to the story that we're fundamentally/essentially selfish.
>
> I was also suggesting that what makes self-organization work well is that
> OST asks us to take responsibility for what we love, or are passionate
> about/find important. We're called to step forward as we are. If we're
> called to step forward as we are in OST, OST might also gives us a hint of
> who we are.
>
> OST also creates the context for a better, more efficient (15000 times
> more?) self-organization. Why is that? Because we create a bubble/framework
> where all the selves in the organization are participating and allowed to
> contribute. Otherwise, a few tries to organize the many. And that process
> is a process of self-organization, as we push and pull against each other,
> but is not as efficient or satisfying as when we are allowed to do so in
> person and with the whole system present. What do we see - that selves are
> amazingly able to organize themselves given a supportive and safe
> framework. We're not only called to step forward, but we can leave when
> we're not comfortable/happy/comfortable. We're not given the space to
> control others, and others are not given the space to control us. The Law
> of mobility/two feet gives us the safety and freedom we need and might not
> have otherwise. That's why I pointed to the law as an organizing principle.
>
> To end, a comment about non-action (I haven't had time to read the thread
> about meditation but only comment what came up in our threads): to do
> nothing doesn't mean to do nothing. :) We all act, as breathing is an act.
> What is interesting to me is detached action, and for me that means
> detached ACTION. :) And mediation is certainly a great way to come to that
> state of mind. Acting without personal agenda, in true love, is another way
> - and both ways are complementary to each other and certainly not mutually
> exclusive. "One who sees action in inaction, and inaction in action, is
> certainly wise." Bhagavad-gita 4.18. (to quote the great :) A worthy goal.
>
> Thank you David for your answer. I will think more about all the
> contributions in the threads and might continue the dance. :)
>
> All the best,
>
> Marie Ann
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:36 AM, David Osborne <dosborne at change-fusion.com>wrote:
>
>>  Marie Ann,
>>
>>  I'm delayed in responding and I hope you still find my thoughts
>> helpful. You ask whether self-organization might work because of intrinsic
>> factors within us all as humans like the desire to help others, be
>> constructive etc. If this is the case the same force is in all of nature
>> because the bees do it , all of nature does it. Yes it may be intrinsic and
>> it's not exclusive to humans.
>>
>>  Perhaps it's the power of Love !!!
>>
>>  David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Marie Ann Östlund <
>> marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   David, thank you for this. It's a helpful perspective.
>>>
>>> I'm a slow thinker (not in Kahneman's sense - just slow) so will need to
>>> meditate on this some more. If I understand you rightly, self-organization
>>> is like a natural law (like gravity) but that it's also based on agents
>>> making choices. That in turn create patterns. Self-organization under right
>>> circumstances can produce powerful change, or emergent change (and I
>>> understand this to be desirable or constructive change). OST creates
>>> optimal circumstances for emergent change.
>>>
>>> Can it not be that self-organization happens because we are
>>> fundamentally constructive, helpful beings. The magic, or the natural law
>>> bit, is not extrinsic (external) to us but instrinsic (natural or
>>> essential) to us, and is what happens when we are in relation to someone
>>> else (or others) that share a similar passion/belief/vision etc. Anyway,
>>> just thinking aloud.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Marie Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, David Osborne <
>>> dosborne at change-fusion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Marie Ann,
>>>>
>>>>  I loved reading your message and thoughts on Open Space and
>>>> Self_Organization. A topic I love and I believe quite paradoxical to
>>>> explain. I agree with all you've shared and have another view as well.
>>>> Self-Organizing is like a multi-faceted diamond that can be viewed from
>>>> multiple perspectives. All I am about to write I have learned from
>>>> Harrison.
>>>>
>>>>  Self-Organizing is nothing more than individual agents (in this case
>>>> humans) making choices that....when culminated together forms a pattern or
>>>> the way things are. The phenomena is scalable so it can happen in a family,
>>>> team, group, organization, country, club, world etc.  I have a few core
>>>> beliefs about self-organization.
>>>>  - It is a law just like the law of gravity
>>>>  - It is operating all the time, just like gravity it is invisible to
>>>> us....we may like the pattern or not...patterns tend to be
>>>> self-reinforcing....think of a time things seem stuck
>>>>  - It can produce powerful change under the right conditions....I call
>>>> this emergent change....Open Space set the conditions for this type of
>>>> emergent change which I will share more about below
>>>>
>>>>  Harrison in his book *The Practice of Peace* outlines how Open Space
>>>> replicates the conditions of Self- Organization flowing from complexity
>>>> Science as identified in Stuart Kauffmans book *At Home in The
>>>> Universe. *I would argue that Kauffman really identified just one
>>>> pattern of self-organizaiton that leads to emergent change. When we
>>>> understand the conditions we can do many, many things to build the
>>>> conditions to support emergent change beyond pure open space. The
>>>> conditions include:
>>>>
>>>>  - A safe nutrient environment
>>>>  - A high level of diversity
>>>>  - Sparse prior connections between the diverse elements
>>>>  - A drive for improvement.....or fitness with the environment
>>>>  - Being on the edge of chaos
>>>>
>>>>  Here is how Open Space creates these conditions.
>>>>
>>>>  A safe nutrient environment:
>>>>  - This starts with the invitation...and individual choice to
>>>> participate....this makes it safe
>>>>  - Sitting in a circle, puts everyone at an equal level...minimizing
>>>> power and hierarchy differences....again making it more safe
>>>>  - The law of two feet supports safety
>>>>  - Positive Intention. The framing of the invitation as something
>>>> everyone wants to achieve creates a shared goal that also builds safety. I
>>>> suspect Harrison's hours of meditating in advance deepens and purifies the
>>>> intention in some manner that contributes to the safety.
>>>>  - The safety ultimately makes it safe for people to bring, foster and
>>>> pursue their passion....it is the energy that makes it all work
>>>>
>>>>  A high level of diversity: Sameness breeds sameness. IT is the mixing
>>>> of diverse idea's that increases the potential for new emergent options
>>>>  - The diverse group of participants an OS invitation draws
>>>>
>>>>  Sparse Prior Connections
>>>>  - This is created by the diverse group of participants
>>>>  - The circle, bulletin board process, law of two feet all support new
>>>> and different connections
>>>>
>>>>  Drive for Improvement
>>>>  - The reason for holding an OS in the first place
>>>>
>>>>  Being on the Edge of Chaos (Two levels of this)
>>>>  - Sitting on the edge of the circle not knowing what's going to unfold
>>>> in the OS is the edge of chaos
>>>>  - What ever issue the organization or group is facing that is creating
>>>> the need for change. The greater the urgency for change the closer to teh
>>>> edge of chaos.
>>>>
>>>>  So if I summarize OS supports the conditions for self-organization to
>>>> lead to emergent change because:
>>>>
>>>>  The situation is ready for it: There is some need for change (edge of
>>>> chaos) and there is a desire to change (drive for improvement)
>>>>  The elements are present to create it: Diverse views connected in new
>>>> ways.
>>>>  Safety is created to let it happen: This takes relinquishing control
>>>> and letting what will naturally emerge to emerge
>>>>
>>>>  As I said earlier....if the goal is for change or something new to
>>>> emerge OS creates the conditions for this AND there are lot's of things we
>>>> can do to open space for change beyond pure open space.
>>>>
>>>>  I hope this is a helpful perspective.
>>>>
>>>>  David
>>>>  703-939-1777
>>>>  dosborne at change-fusion.com
>>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Marie Ann Östlund <
>>>> marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the
>>>>> opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or
>>>>> holding the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the concept
>>>>> and the way we've talked about it. But this autumn the penny dropped (!)
>>>>> for me (to some extent) and I could also understand why I make the
>>>>> connections I do with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why others don't
>>>>> make that same connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand
>>>>> this, and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning - it's
>>>>> a bit long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that
>>>>> exemplified some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave me the
>>>>> perfect cue to put my thoughts together (Thank you!):
>>>>>
>>>>> "And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that
>>>>> these folks (whoever they are...) are already "in" Open Space. They are
>>>>> just doing it badly. Your "offer" is simply to help them to do what they
>>>>> are already doing - but now with some understanding, expertise, and style.
>>>>> Short take: you can help them to remember what they already know, and
>>>>> having remembered, to do everything much better."
>>>>>
>>>>> I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are
>>>>> already "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger
>>>>> "organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars,
>>>>> peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families, teams,
>>>>> etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization. Some are to
>>>>> our liking, some are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful
>>>>> and some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the self-organization
>>>>> done "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST *work*, as we
>>>>> sometimes put it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences
>>>>> lies in the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In
>>>>> simpler or smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer than in
>>>>> larger ones (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the macro level,
>>>>> countries organize themselves based on certain principles - like one of the
>>>>> foundational principles of the US is the freedom to *be* religious
>>>>> and freedom *from* the state (from Britain and its monarchy), while
>>>>> in France freedom *from* religion is foundational and influence what
>>>>> citizens are allowed to learn and wear in school or say in the public
>>>>> sphere, and in Sweden the state (or previously the monarchy) have
>>>>> historically been the guarantor and protector of individual freedom
>>>>> (against the aristocracy). An even greater and deeper organizing principle
>>>>> we've adopted in the western hemisphere is the idea of progress - that our
>>>>> societies invariably progress through scientific and technological
>>>>> advances. And yes, all these ideas, although found articulated by some
>>>>> powerful philosophers, are in a sense a product of self-organization.
>>>>> However interesting the ideas, they would go nowhere if people didn't
>>>>> accept/adopt/spread them or felt they resonated with their own ideas and
>>>>> experiences. The way ideas evolve and spread are certainly complex.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the
>>>>> complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and organise
>>>>> our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one may call them
>>>>> organizing principles. A company can have organizing principle/s - there
>>>>> are differences between how General Motors and Apple are organized and what
>>>>> define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A family also have organizing
>>>>> principles (who's the boss, how decisions are made etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing
>>>>> principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two
>>>>> feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European Learning
>>>>> Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to some extent -
>>>>> sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law and market place,
>>>>> off you go, evening and morning updates, closing circle etc. If it's Open
>>>>> Space, why keep to these rules as we often come back to doing OST in a
>>>>> certain way. Why do we (religiously) adhere to a certain format when doing
>>>>> OST - at least this is how I interpret the query hearing about it second
>>>>> hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's
>>>>> done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows
>>>>> self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we create
>>>>> a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it. The principles
>>>>> help us free our minds enough to be present with what's happening (and most
>>>>> importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the organising principle -
>>>>> follow your heart (and use your feet to do so). Take responsibility for
>>>>> what you love.
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel
>>>>> alive, we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at what is
>>>>> created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken to another
>>>>> level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we create when we
>>>>> come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We love and feel
>>>>> loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad' feelings in OS or
>>>>> don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me) that's often to do with
>>>>> us not following our hearts as fully as we would like to or we're in the
>>>>> messy chaotic part in our organizing process.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being.
>>>>> It says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love
>>>>> contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than us, and
>>>>> we thrive when we're connected.
>>>>>
>>>>> My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take
>>>>> responsibility for what you love) is an organising principle that is closer
>>>>> to our human nature than many other organizing-principles. That's why it
>>>>> *works*. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent, and selfish
>>>>> as Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the basic organizing
>>>>> principles in international relations (more or less). One of the reasons
>>>>> some systems work better is that the organising principles are more fitting
>>>>> to our needs and natures. And some may have worked for some time but no
>>>>> longer does, as they have grown too rigid or not kept up with
>>>>> time/development. They might have helped us from a worse condition, but not
>>>>> fully hit home.
>>>>>
>>>>> To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as
>>>>> facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble is
>>>>> created within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use rituals to
>>>>> communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in a different way
>>>>> than others. We show physically that we're doing something else here than
>>>>> in other systems, by sitting in a circle, going around it, etc. Rituals are
>>>>> powerful. If all system would use the same organizing principle these
>>>>> rituals might no longer matter, or they would adopt the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some
>>>>> principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation that
>>>>> works better than most as its organising principle is closer to human
>>>>> nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human nature isn't
>>>>> done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning. Sorry :)
>>>>>
>>>>>  But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image
>>>>> of dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can
>>>>> also look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with the
>>>>> soul (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic
>>>>> perspective is also the personal or individual view point, of what the
>>>>> dance can be that we create together in love and in relationship to each
>>>>> other. And that might tell a different story about who we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what
>>>>> makes sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Marie Ann
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> David Osborne
>>>>
>>>> www.change-fusion.com | dosborne at change-fusion.com | 703.939.1777
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> David Osborne
>>
>> www.change-fusion.com | dosborne at change-fusion.com | 703.939.1777
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
*Skye Hirst, PhD*
President - The Autognomics Institute
*Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself*
www.autognomics.org
@autognomics

New Phone Number:
207-593-8074
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140204/7a2a45e7/attachment-0008.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140204/7a2a45e7/attachment-0008.png>