[OSList] self-organization

Skye Hirst skyeh at autognomics.org
Tue Jan 7 07:33:40 PST 2014


At the risk of adding to the mix -  http://www.clarewgraves.com/   you
might wish to look at Graves work on spiraling development who followed and
studied human cultural development.

 I think there is a cosmic rhythm in which we all dance and find our way.
This was Joseph Campbell's summarization of his observations of cultural
universal myths; There seems to be some way we organize within a cosmic set
of laws yet discovered,  but laws of coherence such a valuing laws Robert
S. Hartman's work begins to point in this direction.     But natural
language discourses usually can be most unsatisfying since everyone brings
their own vortex of perspective to any view of "reality."  So defining
terms may help but again not very satisfying.  How do we know what we
know?  Charles Peirce's work of semiotics, sign processes what asking this
question. I think you will find he was an influence  of Piaget and Dewey
moving thoughts in the direction of constructivism/ pragmaticism.  And
Habermas is trying to find a logic - and that's the hard part when most of
our logic is based on "thing"  fixedness and life's processes are ever
evolving.  Up or down the staircase,  there is always a movement,  a new
becoming - for each living entity.  How it adds up will most likely be
"self-organized" through our vortex plus that in which we live.  We can
look back and make some sense of it, but actually only slightly as even in
looking at facts,  we can change our perception of those facts and now have
a new reality.

How do we get to the underlying assumptions about reality of Open Space
Tech?   Rather than define language,  Harrison seems to be pointing to what
those underlying, most fundamental assumptions and operatives upon and
through which every act can find its way. Open means never ending - without
form, until there is need for such and societies form as needed around
passions towards intentional fulfillments.  Yet even when the coherence
fulfillment occurs,  the next act begins,  and the next,  all the while we
move into and out of what works for us, what we value or not (law of two
feet). It's so complex that to analyze it without understanding the
fundamentals,  you can get lost.  (Example consider all the ways you can
move without even knowing about the law of gravity, there is no end to
choices, yet if you want to go the moon, you need to know about that law of
gravity, it doesn't say you have to, but if you want to do something that
requires functioning within that realm, then you will want to know about
it.  However, we walked around this planet  a long time not knowing this
law existed.)

I think the organizing laws of life (most different than the laws of
matter, I hypothesize)  are the new frontier

So if we explore all the ways life self-organizes we may be talking about
this for a long time each adding our own knowing of the experience.  We get
richer and deeper perspectives and in the process we may just begin to
sense the threads that show up and eventually we grow in our understanding
of our human shared experience.  This is called philosophy - and as
knowledge expands,  we act with new awareness and I'm beginning to think
each of us do this in our own way,  within the constraints of our
"identity", the society and of nature.  This life process is open ended as
each of us finds our way acting with our best knowledge - within and
without, and then we get to choose again sensing what "feels" right to us
and acting/creating anew.   My two cents.  Skye


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Marie Ann Östlund <
marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:

> John, thank you so much for providing clarity to the discussion. You're
> right that Piaget talked about developmental stages or cognitive
> structures, and was interested in the structures of development rather than
> individual development. I didn't study Piaget more than was required for my
> study of Habermas, but you're right.
>
> Habermas was, and still is, certainly engaged with the idea of social
> progress, which is a foundational idea in his overall social theory, but
> his interest does not lie in historical development but in the *logic of
> development* (which was also Piaget's interest). I found David Owen's *Between
> Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Social Progress* really
> useful in clarifying Habermas' social theory - and you may find it here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsk84z0wy6v7nsj/OWEN%20Habermas%20and%20the%20Idea%20of%20Progress%20%282002%29.pdfIf you're interested. :) Habermas did speak about progress and about
> consciousness, but wasn't interested in the historical facts and content of
> consciousness, but in the structure and logic of societal progress and the
> evolution of consciousness. Owen likens development logic with a staircase
> - one may move up, or down or remain stationary, the movements follow a
> certain logic. Why and when one moves up and down the stairs is a
> contingent matter, but when one moves one has to follow a certain logic.
> When societies step up a stair they have expanded their consciousness,
> meaning learning capacity, when they step down, their learning capacity or
> horizon of consciousness constricts. I never thought I'd read about
> expansion of consciousness when reading Habermas, but did. :)
>
> Habermas has been interested in the staircase, not in the belief in
> progress per se. But I would say that his main interest has been solidarity
> - what makes people bond and cooperate, and thus what makes societies stick
> together. That's why he's been interested in communication.
>
> Marie Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:39 AM, John Watkins <johnw536 at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140107/a3612de8/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list