[OSList] From linkedin today

Sat Jan 25 00:55:59 PST 2014

That is so well put Pernilla...

For a few years now I have holding the question around whether OST has a
cultural bias to it...

I have spoken to other OST facilitators and all have felt that it doesn't...

However my interpretation of events gives me a feeling that yes OST doesn't
however when the room is configured a certain way cultural bias does show
up... and so do we look at that in the pre-work design or not... because
that is where we can influence the conditions of an open space, once it
starts then "whatever happens..."

Smiles Bhav...

On 25 January 2014 00:33, Pernilla Luttropp <pluttropp at swipnet.se> wrote:

>  I so enjoy reading about your different perspectives on
> "self-organisation", most of them makes perfect sense to me.
>
> Still, when I have a room full of
> men/white/adults/heterosexuals/professionals - pick the majority of your
> choice - and one or maybe two single voices of
> women/black/youngsters/homosexuals/amateurs, where the tool for contact is
> spoken and written words, often well formulated on what is considered
> "relevant" for the group, I feel uncomfortable.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that I as the facilitator need to fix
> anything and there is always the opportunity for the minority to leave the
> room. But I still feel uncomfortable.  I've seen that "natural" behaviour
> in a group many times; the majority either ignores the minority or makes a
> big thing out of their "otherness". The minority don't get to be
> individuals, just representatives. And the individuals in the majority
> group easily become an unreflected "we", very comfortable in what is
> considered to be "normal". To me that's another
> "natural-or-it's-been-around-forever" behaviour. And I'm not comfortable
> when I see it being reproduced over and over again. When someone from the
> minority brings this up with me, I usually remind them of their two feet.
> But it makes me sad to see them leave the room. Something else could have
> happened and I was there, both as a human fellow being and a facilitator,
> feeling uncomfortable.
>
> But feeling uncomfortable isn't necessarily bad, there's movement in that
> feeling. And I'm not sure it has to be fixed. But I'd like to hear if
> anyone else shares this feeling and your thoughts on it.
>
> Pernilla
> from Sweden
>
>
> Den 2014-01-23 21:55, skrev "Michael Herman" <michael at michaelherman.com>:
>
> well, i've managed to catch up on quite a heap of oslist emails without
> typing even one peep, but here i am at the last message of the last thread
> and i can't resist chiming in, if only to help make sense of all this for
> myself...
>
>
> david said along the way something about holding space for coherence.  i
> think we hold the space for both coherence and fragmentation.  we never
> really know which one will come up more strongly, or when.  both are just
> stories or labels or guesses we wrap around the aggregation of a the
> various two-feet decisions that participants make and make and make all
> through an event.
>
> in this way, what we're really holding space for is individuals' right or
> opportunity to choose for themselves.  we can invite them to come together
> and be quiet, but some linger in side conversations in hallways or
> corners.  sometimes everyone lingers, and evening news happens later than
> we thought.  sometimes we suggest that morning news is over at 9:30 and the
> circle lasts until 10, because many people choose to stay in the circle
> together.  it's always the sum of everyone deciding at once.
>
> if anyone would try to control this, invade the space of individual
> choosing, sometimes the best we can do is leave the room, as harrison has
> described many times, modeling a choice.  in that case it's pointing to
> fragmentation in the face of an attempt to force coherence.
>
> anyway, the other question that caught my eye was christine's something
> about how to help organization stay healthy and alive.  it reminded me of a
> quote i carried in my wallet for about 10 years or so, from francisco
> varela (a scientist, among other things):  "if a living system is
> unhealthy, the way to make it more healthy is to reconnect it with more of
> itself."
>
> stories and invitations and questions (are these really different or
> separable?) seem to be a very common way to connect, and then truth must be
> what bubbles up in the spaces, between the words, as harold mentioned, and
> between the people, between the breakouts and the plenaries, and so on that
> peggy described in the physical movements.
>
> so i think where i end up here is that self-organization is already always
> happening because everyone is always moving and deciding, and the "big"
> decisions in any "organization" can only ever be the high peaks, visible
> from some distance, that sit atop the many many individual moves and
> choices, piled up over any length of time.
>
> so maybe stories are the words we wrap around piles of choices, and
> organizations show up as the people who choose to wrap themselves around
> various stories?
>
> michael h
>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Herman
> Michael Herman Associates
> 312-280-7838 (mobile)
>
> http://MichaelHerman.com
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net> wrote:
>
>
>  Yes, and play is fun. Play is invigorating. Play brings action. Play
> brings movement. Life is action. Life is movement!
>
>  An entertaining example of play ... action and movement from some
> surprising players, in open space:
>
> http://youtu.be/Iqmba7npY8g
>
> "Let us play"...
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/11/14 3:03 PM, Harold Shinsato wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> (summer)   207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
>
>
>
> www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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 <
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org [
> mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org<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” J that
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140125/ead1b019/attachment-0008.htm>