[OSList] From linkedin today

Thu Jan 9 23:55:05 PST 2014

Thank you Peggy and David

I' will  think over all your answers

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com> wrote:

> I have a different response to Christine’s question:
>
>  if we want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should  we do ?”
>
>
> I’d say take responsibility for what you love.
>
> A system exists through the interactions among its diverse agents. Some of
> those agents, whether in an organism or in an organization, attend to the
> system’s health. Think of the role of kidneys for flushing out toxins. In
> human systems, people, rather than cells, organize stuff. You could argue
> that hierarchies are an overcompensation of a system that ultimately leaves
> unflushed toxicity in its wake, sometimes killing off the organization. Or
> at least making it function in less optimal ways.
>
> As David said, as we come to understand principles of self-organizing,
> we’re better equipped to do stuff that is congruent with natural patterns.
> I think current trends towards network forms of organizing are a promising
> experiment in a system’s agents working with those natural principles. Sort
> of a permaculture for human systems.
>
>
> Christine, to your questions about size:
>
> But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or does it mean that any
> system that is too large to come regularly together as a whole is oversized
> ? should split into several smaller systems to keep its good health
>
>
> Important questions. I suspect as we learn more about how networks
> function, the answers to your questions will get clearer. I can only
> speculate. I can imagine people meeting on behalf of the whole in
> transparent ways that are open to anyone who cares to show up. And if
> overwhelming numbers want to be there, perhaps intersecting circles come
> into play.  Layers of wholeness exist in systems. So those who feel called
> to convene on behalf of the whole take responsibility for it. And connect
> with others who share in that sort of stewarding function. Holding it all
> lightly and not working too hard, of course. :-)
>
> Just mulling…
>
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> Peggy Holman
> peggy at peggyholman.com
> Twitter: @peggyholman
>
> 15347 SE 49th Place
> Bellevue, WA  98006
> 425-746-6274
> www.peggyholman.com
> www.journalismthatmatters.org
>
> *Enjoy the award winning *Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into
> Opportunity <http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/>
> Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information ecosystem<http://www.journalismthatmatters.net/the_emerging_news_and_information_eco_system>
>
> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get
> burnt, is to become
> the fire".
>   -- Drew Dellinger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, David Osborne <dosborne at change-fusion.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Christine,
>
>   I think the tendency toward coherence or fragmentation is the
> organizing principle.
>
>  I see supporting coherence as a part of the process, not an organizing
> principle in itself. It's a choice, similar to the other individual and
> group choices that are a part of self-organization.
>
>  Most of us here on the list serve choose to facilitate / host open space
> sessions. I'd suggest this choice usually leads to building coherence. So
> it is with other coherence supporting choices.The system may or may not do
> it itself.
>
>  Another way I would frame it is that organizations I frequently work in
> are stuck in patterns that they are dissatisfied or frustrated with. Think
> poor business results, customer satisfaction, work environment, employee
> engagement / satisfaction etc. Control is the great inhibitor of
> self-organization and often prevents new coherent patterns being able to
> emerge.  I find that I can often guide or make suggestions that enable
> these groups to tap into the power of organization to create new
> self-reinforcng patterns that they prefer. And my involvement and the
> choice to be open to my suggestions are all choices that are part of the
> self-organization. I'm suggesting that we / they that support coherence are
> also part of the self-organizing, not separate from it.
>
>  I don't mean to be cryptic in my above comments. I find myself
> continuing to build my own (and hopefully shared) language that describes
> self-organization. I loved the statement earlier in this exchange that
> compared self-organization to gravity. I do believe they are both laws that
> operate invisibly all the time. The point made was that understanding
> gravity is key to being able to fly to the moon. I think similarly the more
> we understand and can share the principles of self-organization, we can
> help humanity fly versus staying stuck in conflict and competition.Thus my
> continual search to find better ways of sharing and communicating.
>
>  I'm really enjoying tracking and participating in this dialogue and
> thanks to all that are contributing and listening/reading.
>
>  David
>  703-939-1777
>  dosborne at change-fusion.com
> <image.png>
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Christine <chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hi David
>>
>>  Very interesting, that makes sense to me. Does it mean that supporting
>> coherence of the system as a whole should be an organizing principle ?
>>  But then Harrison will say I guess that it is not necessary, as self
>> org. will take care of the system itself.
>>  Then there is something that I don't understand about self-org. : if we
>> want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should  we do ?
>>
>> Christine Koehler
>> 06 13 28 71 38
>>
>>
>> Le 9 janv. 2014 à 22:20, David Osborne < dosborne at change-fusion.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>   I found the questions about how do you keep a system as a coherent
>> whole fascinating.
>>
>>  Part of the dance is the back and forth between coherence and
>> fragmentation. Chaos offers both opportunity and threat, new life and
>> death. Coherence leads to new life patterns emerging, fragmentation leads
>> towards death and the cycle toward new life continues. In my experience
>> there is lot's that can be done to reinforce, nurture and support
>> coherence. Holding the space is one aspect. Drawing attention and building
>> consensus around what is emerging is another, supporting parts of the
>> system through conflict in a manner that continues to increase the
>> likelihood of coherence is a third. There are many more...and those are
>> some quick thoughts for now. All of this can and is done with in the
>> context of self-organization and someone having the passion and taking the
>> initiative to do it. The two are not mutually exclusive.
>>
>>  Cheers to all.
>>
>>  David
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, christine koehler <
>> chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Peggy
>>>
>>> If I simplify what you say (and I apologize for it), I understand that
>>> you say that what keep a self-organized system coherent as a whole is
>>> coming regularly together  as a whole, following our two feet to sessions
>>> called around we love, coming back as a whole, dispersing again for the
>>> evening. Of course I would tend to agree with that. But then how do you do
>>> with very large systems ? Or does it mean that any system that is too large
>>> to come regularly together as a whole is oversized ? should split into
>>> several smaller systems to keep its good health ?
>>>
>>>  and what about decision making ?
>>>
>>>  Christine
>>>  end 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/20140110/c9c00cb2/attachment-0008.htm>