[OSList] From linkedin today

Sat Jan 11 12:03:40 PST 2014

Harrison,

I was going to ask you to say more about "High Play", but it was easy to 
learn more about your ideas here with a quick google search. From 
http://www.openspaceworld.com/Opening%20Space%20for%20The%20Question.htm. The 
emphasis is mine.

    High Play denotes the manner in which the people involved approach
    their task -- playfully. Quite often play is understood to be a
    trivial incidental compared to the real business of living. I think
    this is a profound error. Play for me may be the most serious
    (important) of our many undertakings. The importance of play derives
    from the fact that when we experience reality in different and
    unexpected ways, *we seek to understand (develop knowledge about)
    **our new experience by telling likely stories, or in more formal
    terms, creating theories*. We take the available evidence, combined
    with our prior experience and try to construct reasonable
    explanations for the newly observed phenomenon. Almost inevitably
    our first attempts are flawed, and it is often the case that there
    are as many theories (stories) as people telling them. If everybody
    treats their version as the "gospel truth" it is not long before the
    dead hand of dogma descends, and the search for understanding
    degenerates into a fight amongst ideologues.  On the other hand,
    when people treat their new adventure in a playful fashion, there
    may well be serious competition, but there is also deep respect for
    the "opponents," and a real joy in the game. In Open Space it is
    very common to see the game of knowledge building played with real
    skill and enjoyment -- even by people who have never done anything
    like that before.

I really like the presence of "real joy in the game" of finding the best 
likely stories (theories). I also love the value you express for "deep 
respect for the 'opponents'".

Game on!

     Harold

On 1/11/14 11:58 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> Harold -- I like your last line,"If we can hold our theories in the 
> same fashion as "a likely story", maybe we'll start being able to tell 
> better stories (theories)." Actually, my words for this are High Play. 
> I've found that good theory building is best done playfully, which 
> does not make it a trivial activity, but it does guard against 
> dogmatism. Good theory, playfully created, and playfully held is 
> always open to revision -- or just plain discard.
>
> Harrison
>
> 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.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20>(Personal Website)
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of 
> OSLIST Go 
> to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
> *From:*oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org> 
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Harold 
> Shinsato
> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 7:55 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] From linkedin today
>
> Harrison,
>
> It seemed like you were having a problem with understanding when you 
> wrote the following:
>
> "When I was confronted with what was happening in Open Space (25 years 
> ago) it made absolutely no sense to me at all. And what makes no sense 
> does not lend itself to understanding. I "knew," as did everybody else 
> of my age, background and training -- that what seemed to be taking 
> place in Open Space simply could not happen. Organization was 
> something that we created, managed, and controlled."
>
> There are so many theoretical frameworks that have begun to embody the 
> more adaptive systems thinking required maybe not to fully understand, 
> but to start to improve our models of organization not something as 
> something we impose - but something that we can nurture, cultivate, or 
> just open ourselves to experience.
>
> It seems like this thread has been about understanding 
> self-organization. I love that you brought something from Quantum 
> Mechanics that "somebody's formulation was good, but not crazy enough 
> to be true." This reminds me of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao that can be 
> spoken is not the true Tao.
>
> It reminds me a lot of what you wrote in Spirit, and which you 
> mentioned in your TED talk. Story tellers don't tell the truth. But in 
> the story, truth emerges. Probably between the words.
>
> If we can hold our theories in the same fashion as "a likely story", 
> maybe we'll start being able to tell better stories (theories).
>
>     Harold
>
> On 1/10/14 5:08 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
>     Harold -- I have no problem with "understanding." Good and useful
>     enterprise. Question is: Understanding of what? And in what frame
>     or context. I think we have come to a point where we "understand"
>     Jthat there are multiple logics, each appropriate to different
>     senses of reality. Newtonian Physics really does work. AND Quantum
>     Mechanics was/is crazy. In fact one of the framers of Quantum
>     Mechanics (Heisenberg I think) remarked that that somebody's
>     formulation was good, but not crazy enough to be true. Or
>     something.  I think we may be at a similar paradigm/shift point.
>     We'll see how it all turn out.
>
>
>

-- 
Harold Shinsato
harold at shinsato.com <mailto:harold at shinsato.com>
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140111/2e155a13/attachment-0008.htm>