[OSList] From linkedin today

Michael M Pannwitz mmpannwitz at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 01:03:18 PST 2014


Here is a link to a long list of measures the European Union is employing
> http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/guide/glossary_en.html

mmp

On 10.01.2014 08:55, christine koehler wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:peggy at peggyholman.com>
>     Twitter: @peggyholman
>
>     15347 SE 49th Place
>     Bellevue, WA  98006
>     425-746-6274
>     www.peggyholman.com <http://www.peggyholman.com>
>     www.journalismthatmatters.org <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>
>>     <image.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Christine
>>     <chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com
>>     <mailto: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 <tel:06%2013%2028%2071%2038>
>>
>>
>>         Le 9 janv. 2014 à 22:20, David Osborne <
>>         dosborne at change-fusion.com
>>         <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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
>>>             <mailto: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
>

-- 
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
++49 - 30-772 8000



Check out the Open Space World Map presently showing 423 resident Open 
Space Workers in 71 countries working in a total of 143 countries 
worldwide: www.openspaceworldmap.org



More information about the OSList mailing list