[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