<html>
At 08:44 AM 10/28/2002 -0900, Julie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>They hypothesize that the reason
most educational reforms don't foster<br>
much real change is because the underlying beliefs/rules aren't<br>
changing. They posit the idea that self-organization is happening
all<br>
the time, AND that we naturally self-organize around those
beliefs/rules<br>
that we hold to be true. (This last part is new to me. Can't quite
get<br>
my mind completely around it. Don't know if I agree with it.
Is that<br>
what we mean by self-organization as we use the term here?) One
example<br>
is hierarchical beliefs self-organizing into hierarchical social<br>
structures. Hence, they say, to deeply change the educational
system,<br>
we must begin by changing the basic underlying beliefs of educators:
we<br>
must change those simple rules/beliefs that educators self-organize<br>
around.<br><br>
Aye, there's the rub. I'm wondering if people here agree with
that. Do<br>
we initiate the kind of change we desire by challenging another's
model<br>
of the world and attempting to replace it with our own, or do we
simply<br>
start with self-organization itself? Arghhh..... scratch
that<br>
question. Faulty on too many levels.</blockquote><br>
Wonderful discussion! I think it is absolutely correct that models
and principles have to be changed before educators,for one, along with
most other folks who "run," or think they run, organizations --
which would include businesses, governments, NGOs and all the rest -- can
go in some different directions. The question, however, is how do you do
that ???? It is typical to present new models and principles, and then
seek to prove (or argue) that the new ones are better than the old. But
this never quite seems to work, for several reasons. First of all people
really like their old models and principles -- not just as a matter of
habit and comfort (both true), but for much deeper reasons. Those models
and principles actually define "meaningful life" for those who
hold them. Absent those models and principles, and life as they
understand it quite simply disappears. So if meaning in my life is
described and affirmed by my rise in the hierarchy, whereby I assume
greater and greater control -- and suddenly there is no hierarchy and no
control -- at least of the sort I thought I had -- poor me. And should it
turn out that the hierarchy and control was actually delusional, just
like the Emperor's Cloths -- poor, poor me. <br><br>
When it comes to "argument and proof" from one model to a new
one, I think we are cut off at the pass. Argument assumes common
presuppositions -- and in their absence, you just can't get there from
here. This is what Paradigm Shift really means. There is no logical
bridge. You just got to jump. And that jump is the last thing that most
people would do voluntarily. You either have to be pushed -- or somehow,
seemingly miraculously, find yourself in the new reality. <br><br>
For my money this new reality is actually a very old one -- perhaps the
oldest of all. This is the world of self-organizing systems. To my mind
-- all systems are self organizing, it is just that some people delude
themselves into thinking that they did the organizing. Absolute heresy
for sure, and scarcely popular in such places as business schools where
for a small fee they will teach you how to organize, control, and
generally take charge. Should it turn out that my odd belief is correct,
just think what that would do to the un-employment rate.<br><br>
Here is where Open Space fits in. It is experienced by some as a major
push, and others as wonderful magic. Actually, I think it is neither.
Just a blinding flash of the obvious. <br><br>
Some folks seem to think that the consequence of this "radical
belief" (it is all self-organizing) is the elimination of useful
human activity. If it is all self-organizing, we just have to let things
happen. Take our hands off the steering wheel, so to speak. I think that
is profoundly wrong. It is just that our actions will start from a
different place and assume different forms. The energy may now be devoted
to enabling naturally occurring organizational forms to optimize -- as
opposed to creating such forms in the first place. Much more efficient,
and it feels better. At least that has been my experience.<br><br>
Harrison<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<div align="center">Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-365-2093<br>
Open Space Training
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
<br>
Open Space Institute <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
Personal website <a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF">http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm</a><br><br>
<u>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<br>
</u></font>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,<br>
view the archives of <font color="#0000FF"><u>oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu<br>
</u></font>Visit: <a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</a><br><br>
<br><br>
</font></u></div>
</html>