<html>
[This mail is related with Chris questions on Al-Qaeda as an OSO <br>
and the messages that followed on that thread and also with
Harrison's <br>
post "A transformative moment". My post is not an answer to any
of <br>
those; only some reflections...]<br>
<br>
1. The first idea I had immediately after I heard about the 911
was:<br>
"Barbarians are again at the frontier of the Empire, and once again
<br>
Rome (now called USA) will inevitably create their own defeat - they
<br>
will not be defeated; they will defeat themselves - and the barbarians
<br>
will have only to wait and enter the town later..."<br>
<br>
2. Of course I have not believed in my own thoughts, until the war <br>
began, the reaction in Islamic countries were known and later the <br>
Anthrax paranoia appeared.<br>
<br>
3, But what exactly is Al Qaeda and associated groups? Before <br>
thinking on the OSO analogy, my first reaction was to interpret them
<br>
from two models that I am aware of:<br>
<br>
3.1. First, Al Qaeda and similar groups, and especially AFTER the <br>
beginning of war are similar to the "birth stage of movements"
as Alberoni <br>
describes them.. Do you imagine that Christians could grow without the
<br>
persecution from Rome? I doubt. The "persecution" is the best
environment <br>
for millions of new faithful people join the movement and hundreds of new
<br>
organizations and cells flourish - in this case especially in Islamic
countries, <br>
but not only there. Many of the points that Alberoni relates are present
in this <br>
movement - a reformation of the ISLAM is beginning, with a clear
target,<br>
militants are "brothers" (no sisters, of course) and their
ideas are strong <br>
enough to accept the death - as many primitive Christians also did
once.<br>
<br>
3.2. Al Qaeda adapted structures that were common in communist
parties<br>
under special conditions of repression: the Directions were frequently
<br>
arrested and each cell should act on their own, following accepted
principles, <br>
until its connections would be reestablished...<br>
<br>
4. So do we need and shall talk about OSO when referring to Al
Qaeda?<br>
Before trying to discuss that, I must make some clarifications about some
<br>
opinions I have - I am not sure of them and would like to see them <br>
commented by all that have been thinking on OSOs:<br>
<br>
4.1. As Harrison pointed we live in a "trasformative moment".
The world is <br>
changing dramatically. And we, as a community, will also, inevitably,
need <br>
to rethink, if not our practice, at least our theory to cope with the new
<br>
situation. Especially as there is nothing more practical than a good
<br>
theory. These accidents affected us more than other communities. And
<br>
it is probably because of it that the question is recurrent here...<br>
<br>
4.2 the main point I think that must be reviewed is the principle
"whatever <br>
happens is the only thing that should". Applied generally it
includes <br>
one word that is self-contradictory. The word "should"
presupposes that <br>
a special order <b>should</b> occur on a chaos situation and that is
never true.<br>
A complex situation, an open system, can have many "strange
atractors" <br>
it is by chance that one is followed and not others.<br>
<br>
But also, if "whatever happens is what should" this conducts to
accept <br>
irresponsibility - the attacks to the towers, or slavery, or the murder
<br>
of the Indians are no longer matter of responsability, error and crime
but<br>
"what should have happened". Even the Pope, Q. Elizabeth II or
the <br>
Japan government are assuming their responsibilities in crimes against
<br>
humanity and presenting excuses to the descendents (frequently very
<br>
few). So a better wording, as it has been discussed already, would be
<br>
"whatever happens --- is what happens!" (with no
"should").<br>
<br>
5. Harrison and others seem to think that OS foundation apply because we
<br>
live embed in open self-organizing systems. I think this is not
true.<br>
<br>
5.1 - our companies are constrained by their owners and stockholders
<br>
that impose constraints; our Public Administration bodies are constrained
<br>
by politics; and politicians themselves are constrained by big economical
<br>
interests. Even our communities are constrained to certain conditions
and<br>
situations.<br>
<br>
5.2. All our international order (economical and political) is
constrained <br>
to the interests of the rich companies and countries and their armies.
<br>
The help that rich people give to poor, at the individual, the community
<br>
or the international level - is given to allow some conscious to be
<br>
"tranquilized" -- but they create greater dependencies than
they solve. <br>
Almost all "international help" is a fraud for not showing the
reality of <br>
exploitation. <br>
<br>
5.3 After the end of colonialism, Occidental potencies learned <br>
neo-colonialism: even worst exploitation, but now with the add of
"local <br>
authorities" that get corrupted to sell the interests of their
countries and<br>
peoples - or are blackmailed as they try to protect them.<br>
<br>
5.4. This was created by European countries, not by America - but America
<br>
is now the big profiteer from those unequal relations with the third
World. <br>
Contrarily to what Harrison said, we are not only, nor mainly, not
doing <br>
our best to alleviate the situation - we (our governments and economical
<br>
powers) are the creators of the situation. And we are now paying for
that.<br>
<br>
5.5. Hence, organizations and countries live in constrained situations,
and <br>
at the social level the self-organization of Open systems rarely apply,
because <br>
we face closed or constrained systems. <br>
<br>
6. So, for me, Open Space and/or OST happen only in situations where
<br>
those "normal" constraints are removed or circunvened - or
where constraints <br>
are accepted as constrains to deal with, and not as "givens" to
please the <br>
sponsors.<br>
<br>
7. Sorry if I began by these controversial points, but they are essential
for my<br>
conclusion. NO, Al Qaeda is NOT, imho, an OSO. First the space is not
Open; its <br>
constrained by "givens" like "women don't
participate" - not enough diversity -,<br>
participants are not free from medieval stereotypes; true learning
(double loop <br>
learning) can not happen if and when it implies to question the
"givens" of the <br>
fundamentalism, and lastly they have not a purpose and an Ethics for
their own;<br>
they replace Ethics by the "moral" (habitudes) of their
society, and - like <br>
cancer - they can’t have a life of their own - they will destroy
themselves if <br>
and when they will kill the "occidental body" where they live.
If they will win <br>
a new "feudalism" will be in place for a long time. <br>
<br>
8. So, if my interpretation is right (and I am not sure about that) we
have <br>
to make some changes in our understanding of Open Space - things we
<br>
have taken for granted must be questioned (like some principles, the
concept <br>
of Spirit - that also apply to the talibans!- and the concept of
"givens") and, on <br>
the contrary, things that we have overlooked may be crucial - like
Ethics.<br>
<br>
My 2 cents.<br>
<br>
Please comment (if possible, with more than 2 cents ;-)<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>