[OSList] self-organization

Harrison Owen hhowen at verizon.net
Thu Jan 2 07:14:10 PST 2014


Marie -- Definition is always a good place to start. Sometimes it even works
J

 

1. How do you define a system?

2. What does self-organizing mean?

 

 

System: Two or more entities gathered together to do something. That could
be two atoms connecting to make a molecule.  Human Systems we usually refer
to as “Organizations” and I would define them pretty much the same way: Two
or more people gathered together to do something. 

 

Self Organization: The process of connecting/gathering happens pretty much
all by itself, without benefit of external agent, or in the case of
Organizations, an executive. To be sure, invitations may be extended,
arrangements made (lodging, food, etc) but at the end of the day, the people
get together because they care to – or not. The pattern of connection is as
various as humanity itself, but there is a commonality. Somebody has a
dream, we might call it a vision or passion. As long as that Dream remains
locked in the mind of the dreamer, not much happens. But when the dream is
told (story) some folks nearby may find it attractive, and if so they will
move to association (care to come). What happens next is never  guaranteed,
but if the new folks find that the dream/vision/passion is one they share,
they will begin to figure ways to make it happen. That dream could be to
share a pint at the pub – and quickly a local watering hole finds itself
filled with customers. Not an executive committee in sight!

 

To see all of this in action, drop by any pub, or check out the next Open
Space you are a part of. Even with very large and old organization, there
was a time when some dreamer dreamed a dream, felt a passion and shared it.
All the rest is history.

 

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: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 6:47 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] self-organization

 

Hi Harrison,

Thank you for your kind response (and all the other responses (I'll be
back!)). I'm still not understanding this, so would love digging deeper into
the subject. I wrote a long response, but now I'm just going to ask you two
questions based on your first point: 

 

"First: All systems are self organizing, even those we think we organize."

1. How do you define a system?

2. What does self-organizing mean?

I'm realizing that we might just as well start with defining the terms and
go from there. I hope that's ok with you.

 

Wishing you and all on the list a wonderful and Happy New Year!

Marie Ann (to clarify: one name spelt like two - I blame my parents :)

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

Marie – I think you have it just right. But maybe you are making things a
little too complicated, and working a bit too hard. In my simple mind,
things look like this. First: All systems are self organizing, even those we
think we organize. Second: Organizing a self organizing system is not only
an oxymoron, but stupid – especially when the system can do a better job all
by itself. Third: Whenever we try to organize a self-organizing system, we
inevitably get it wrong. Our efforts are “clunky.” Even though it may look
great on paper, our efforts are never subtle or flexible (agile) enough.
Fourth: Open Space is simply an invitation to self organize. In other words
it is simply an invitation to be and do what we are. The fact that it works
as it does has nothing to do with our knowing any philosophy, principles,
practices... It works as it has for 13.7 billion years, long before we
arrived on the scene, all without our help and assistance. Fifth: the real
value of OST is as a training program enabling us to experience consciously
and intentionally what all too often passes by unnoticed – Life. It is also
a marvelous laboratory in which we can learn more about our natural state.
And oh yes – all the principles, philosophies, practices, etc are fun,
interesting, and useful to the extent that they help us to understand with
greater clarity what is really going on. But at the end of the day they
really don’t change a thing. I think.

 

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] On Behalf Of Marie Ann
Östlund
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:17 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: [OSList] self-organization

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140102/d742647e/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list