<html>
At 23:18 04-10-2001, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>It is certainly quite possible to Open Space
and never mention either the 4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it
will work quite well. The reason, I think, is that both are simply an
acknowledgment of what was going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles
emerged NOT as prescriptions of expected behavior, but rather as simple
observations of what seemed to be going on. The Right people showed up,
work was focused in the Now with little regard for what might have been
or should have been -- It always started when it was the right time --
and of course, it was definitely over when it was over. The only value in
announcing the principles (or perhaps a value) is that doing so takes all
the guilt out. And misplaced guilt is a waste of time and energy. As for
The Law of Two Feet, I think this is really critical to effectively
operating in Open Space (any self-organizing system) --- but again, folks
will do it anyhow. Unfortunately they don't use their two feet -- they
just let their minds and hearts wander when they are no longer
interested. All the Law says if follow your passion (interest) but
responsibly.</blockquote><br>
I understand your point, Harrison, but I don't agree with you completely.
<br>
And for me, in this moment, it is important to try to understand the role
<br>
of the "principles" - if any.<br>
<br>
Please note I don't want to discuss with you - I will have to explain my
<br>
position, so that you can understand it and comment on it. And with
<br>
time maybe we can try to reach some sort of agreement.<br>
<br>
So first let me state where we are - as far as I understand - in <br>
agreement. And that is in the role of the circle, board, market, <br>
theme and law. But also other preconditions that at clearly stated <br>
in the "Guide" -- namely, the theme is correctly formulated,
and is of <br>
real concern; the CORRECT people are invited (but not obliged to <br>
came) by the Sponsor WITH THE HELP from the Facilitator,<br>
etc.<br>
<br>
IN THOSE CONDITIONS, "what happens is what should" . But if the
<br>
bad theme was selected, or if an incorrect group was invited, than what
<br>
happens is NOT what should, but what the sponsor managed some <br>
people to believe that "should". He or She is manipulating the
group <br>
so that it seems that the Space is Open - but it was "initially
<br>
constrained". That can be particularly bad when the sponsor <br>
is also the main facilitator, as he or she can honestly believe that
<br>
the constraints he or she is "opening the space", but be wrong
and <br>
being closing it.<br>
<br>
So when you write:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>It is certainly quite possible to Open Space
and never mention either the 4 Principles or The Two Footed Law -- and it
will work quite well. The reason, I think, is that both are simply an
acknowledgment of what was going to happen anyhow. Thus, the Principles
emerged NOT as prescriptions of expected behavior, but rather as simple
observations of what seemed to be going on. The Right people showed up,
work was focused (...)</blockquote><br>
<br>
"What was going to happen anyhow" means “what”? What was going
<br>
to happen anyhow, within an OST event? Or within ANY type of meeting?
<br>
Or even within any type of event - and then, and only then, would the
<br>
principles qualify as "Laws of Spirit" (or Nature,
or...).<br>
<br>
I think that in "normal meetings" and "regular
organizations" and <br>
"normal social-economical-political situations" NO ONE IS IN
CHARGE but <br>
there are relations and conditions of power, influence, etc that make
that <br>
those systems ARE NOT self-organizing systems. They have constraints
<br>
(power constraints, ideological constraints, economical interests, etc)
that <br>
make them "constrained systems".<br>
<br>
(and some people call those "constraints" the
"givens" and include the word as<br>
part of OST terminology even if don't remember to see the word in any of
your <br>
books, and I think it is in contradiction with OST).<br>
<br>
Indeed the way I see OST is that, for the duration of the meeting, we try
to <br>
stop those constraints, OPENING THE SPACE for self-organization. And
<br>
then, and only then, will happen what "should" happen,
according with the <br>
self-organization of open complex systems. (Complex means also that the
<br>
required complexity and diversity was invited to the meeting, in
conditions <br>
(including economical ones) that make possible to ALL of them to appear
<br>
if they wanted to).<br>
<br>
Now in what concerns other principles like "when it starts is the
right time".<br>
I think that you honestly think that this is what happens all the time.
But you<br>
and I both have been in many Congresses and know what that mean. And
<br>
what is astonishing in open space meetings is that (except for
butterflies <br>
and bumblebees) the scheduled time is quite precisely respected (and
much<br>
more that in any other meetings). So maybe the real consequence of
stating <br>
that principle (added with the other preconditions) is to obtain an
effective<br>
respect of the schedule ;-)<br>
<br>
That relates with your other point: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>The only value in announcing the principles
(or perhaps a value) is that doing so takes all the guilt out. And
misplaced guilt is a waste of time and energy.</blockquote><br>
It is not only a waste; guilt inhibits learning and creativity. So the
"only <br>
value" is probably a very important feature of OST. But he rules on
time <br>
are, IMHO, sugestions, not principles, much less "immutable
principles".<br>
<br>
I will be back Sunday evening. You will have time to think about this
;-)<br>
<br>
Warm regards and a nice week end to all. <br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>