[OSList] self-organization

Mon Jan 6 17:39:22 PST 2014

Paul and Marie Ann,

There are some pretty loose uses of terms in this conversation I'd like to challenge.  I don't think Piaget ever talked about human evolution, nor about an individual "evolving," nor about societal cognitive development over time.  He did develop a theory about individual human cognitive development, that involved several stages (sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operations, and formal operational stages) and two different processes (assimilation and accommodation) of concept/category development.  It's also a constructivist theory of knowledge in general, positing an active cognitive construction of our understanding of the world around us.  Here is a good summary from the Wikipedia page on his theory:

"Piaget's theory of cognitive development is a comprehensive theory about the nature and development of human intelligence, first developed by Jean Piaget. It is primarily known as a developmental stage theory, but in fact, it deals with the nature of knowledge itself and how humans come gradually to acquire, construct, and use it. To Piaget, cognitive development was a progressive reorganization of mental processes as a result of biological maturation and environmental experience. Children construct an understanding of the world around them, then experience discrepancies between what they already know and what they discover in their environment.[1] Moreover, Piaget claims the idea that cognitive development is at the center of human organism and language is contingent on cognitive development. Below, there is first a short description of Piaget's views about the nature of intelligence and then a description of the stages through which it develops until maturity. "However, research has shown that not all persons in all cultures reach formal operations, and most people do not use formal operations in all aspects of their lives."[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

People have contested parts of his theory because of the seeming rigidity of the stages, and people have modified it with social learning theory (Vygotsky, Wenger). As far as I know, none of these people posited that individual development is mirrored in the development of human society (other than the seemingly unrelated argument of recapitulation theory, "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny"), which argues that an individual organism's physical development from once cell to fully formed takes it through all the evolutionary precursors of its species.  And seemingly the opposite of what you are saying, he argues that language is contingent on cognitive development, not the other way around.

I think Habermas, as a member of the Frankfurt School, was trying to find a way around the problems in critical theory of "false consciousness" when he proposed his ideas about communicative competence as a way to transcend social orders based on ideology (and the languages and communication forms specific to technical and social discourses).  He was concerned with conditions that would allow for social change in settings constrained by ideology, and thus proposed the idea of "emancipatory knowledge," that could arise in social communicative interactions that he called "linguistic intersubjectivity." Though the Frankfurt School are neo-Marxists, I doubt that Habermas and his followers were strong believers in "progress," the only word I can think of that might be what you mean by societal evolution, though, I suppose one could call that a materialist form of social evolution (I just wonder at the precision of the use of the term, "evolution," in this context).  If communicative competence is the main way he saw to move beyond ideologically constrained realities and achieve social justice, then it must be a precarious and necessarily recursive strategy at best.  You could argue that epistemologically, Piaget and Habermas might have been somewhat similar in being anti-postivists, one being a cognitive constructivist and the other a social constructivist.  But I think the similarities end there.  I don't think either of them really talked about the evolution of consciousness.

John

On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Marie Ann Östlund wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thank you for that. I'm not well versed in these theories but I know that Habermas have used Piaget's theory of human evolution to describe evolution of human society. What I find attractive with his view is his emphasis on communication as the motor of evolution - human conciousness evolves through interaction with others and become less egoistic or self-centred. However, this evolution is not inevitable. That's why Habermas is so concerned with the communicative side of society. It is through our interaction with others that our self-centredness is challenged and hopefully modified.
> 
> Others have challenged the view that it's possible to compare the evolution of consciousness - from childhood to youth - with the evolution of society. Still others don't agree with Piaget's theory (within his field) but I don't know their objections. 
> 
> But if we use the idea that evolution of consciousness means becoming less self-centred and more conscious of others - are we sure that human society is evolving? And if we are, is it from a historical low-point (20th century wasn't particularly wonderful, considering the WWs, Cold War etc.) or has it progressed steadily from time immemorial? From what historical point do we take our measure? From where, which continent, and what are we measuring? 
> 
> I'm conscious that I'm questioning some commonly held assumptions, and you might find it ridiculous of me to do so. But that's what fools are for :)
> 
> Marie Ann 
> 
> Skickat från min iPhone
> 
> 6 jan 2014 kl. 22:38 skrev Paul Nunesdea <nunesdea at me.com>:
> 
>> Hi Marie Ann, 
>> 
>> I apologise if interrupting an otherwise interesting conversation here with but when you ask 
>>> interested to know what you base your idea that human consciousness has "clearly evolved". :)
>> 
>> Piaget and others have written about how human consciousness evolves from birth to adult life.
>> 
>> Most of this knowledge derives from cheer observation of small child's behaviour.
>> 
>> If you extrapolate this findings to our own evolution as a species wouldn't it be natural that this same self-developing path applies to this other dimension of 'being human'?
>> 
>> Happy new year!!
>> 
>> From my iPad
>> 
>> On 06/01/2014, at 18:02, Marie Ann Östlund <marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> 
>>> I do agree that Open Space is a form of organising - a beautiful and eloquent one, as you say. If we bring 200 people in a room without any set up, principles, law, facilitator etc, it most probably be quite a different meeting than an Open Space meeting. So yes, a form of organising.
>>> 
>>> Interesting view on self-organising. I hear what you're saying, and I think many esoterically inclined on the list would agree. I'm esoterically inclined, but don't quite agree. But that's not the point. This discussion helps me understand how some of you define and view self-organisation, and why you talk about it in the way you do. 
>>> 
>>> I'd be interested to know what you base your idea that human consciousness has "clearly evolved". :)
>>> 
>>> Marie Ann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:
>>> HI Marie
>>> 
>>> I'm suggesting quite the opposite. Truth doesn't always elude us because we are both tiny and universal.
>>> 
>>> Open Space is a form of organisation. It is a minimally structured process that enables BOTH selves and the SELF to organise.
>>> 
>>> Self-organisation is the act of the self, organising. The self is microcosmic, realised in the emergent, incarnated individual self, and macrocosmic in the holism (whole-ism) of the universe. Diversity lies in between, different levels and qualities of consciousness.
>>> 
>>> As consciousness in our human selves has clearly been evolving, we've gone through various stages. Egoism has tended to both harden the self and lead to overstructure as those selves attempt to enclose and gain control over nature. Minimal structuring and organisation is an antidote to overstructure. Open Space Technology is such a minimal structure. And, oh yes, a structure it is. A beautiful, eloquent one.
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2 January 2014 23:37, Marie Ann Östlund <marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thank you Paul. I'm not sure how to respond or if I need to. :)
>>> 
>>> Truth with always elude us since we're tiny. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand. And as you say: "Perhaps it's us self-organising so the self might know it" That's what I'm suggesting. Our experiences might help us towards some more coherence.
>>> 
>>> Marie Ann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:09 PM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:
>>> Of course, all of these wonderful statements about what self-organisation is, are organising statements !
>>> 
>>> Open Space Technology itself, minimal as it is, is an organising process.
>>> 
>>> I do enjoy lazy philosophy. It's part of our mysterious humanity. And making statements about self-organisation is like trying to bite your own teeth. You can't grasp this particular spiritual feather because you are the feather, the wind, the blowing and even the story of it.
>>> 
>>> Though, perhaps the "self" in self-organisation really does refer to the human self.
>>> 
>>> The eye is formed by the light, for the light. Perhaps it's us self-organising so the self might know it.
>>> 
>>> Happy New Year
>>> 
>>> Paul Levy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, 30 December 2013, Daniel Mezick wrote:
>>> Such a rich topic! Thanks to Marie Ann Östlund for opening this topic.
>>> 
>>> I am compelled to add the following words (verbatim) from RIGHTS OF MAN, by Thomas Paine. The book is quite an interesting read for folks like us. It tends to confirm and join with all of Harrison's key points. 
>>> 
>>> My favorite quote in the book: 
>>> "...society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government."
>>> 
>>> When he says [society] in the text, he means groups to people who are self-organizing, according to natural propensity.
>>> 
>>> The whole book is here, for free:
>>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2H_4_0007
>>> 
>>> Quoting below, from this specific section:
>>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2HCH0001
>>> 
>>> Will you pardon my forwardness? I've taken the liberty of bolding a few words for emphasis:
>>> "So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organisation which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilised life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
>>> 
>>> "Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilisation—to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained—to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man—it is to these things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
>>> 
>>> "The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.
>>> 
>>> "Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/30/13 11:10 AM, Harrison Owen 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
>>>> 
>>>> www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)
>>>> 
>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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. Blog. Twitter. 
>>> 
>>> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager.
>>> 
>>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching.
>>> 
>>> Explore the Agile Boston 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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