<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Ah, now it's flowing. Here are some
aspects surfacing for me:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Michael:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>the importance of purpose</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Harrison:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>"The central issue for me is diversity. And a central
principle (experience) for me is that the higher the level of diversity (by
whatever measure) the greater the possibility of innovative
outcomes."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>From Tree:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>"<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>What
matters, I think, is the spirit in which the private meeting/session is born"
and</FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>the pain of feeling excluded</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Mark:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>deep questions about the nature of
butterfly-ness, such as:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2>Does the formal process and form of OST
fundamentally reject "private"<BR> conversation and its
manifestation in some forms of "butterfly-ness"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Justin and Nancy:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The joy of being a
butterfly</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Diane:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>What about convening groups of a
type (e.g., for African-Americans only, for women only)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Chris:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080 size=2>the discipline of energetic
openness and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=074070819-15082006><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080 size=2>the
need for a private conversation with myself</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=074070819-15082006><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>From Ashley:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>That a group can be a co-creative
whole and like an individual </FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>need space
to breathe and </FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>find
resonance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Here's what's surfacing for me through
all of these threads:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>There are some natural and
vibrant tensions that dance through these ideas:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>primary focus on ideas and
innovation/primary focus on relationships, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>transparency/privacy, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2>inclusion/exclusion</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Sometimes the primary purpose is
innovation and posting sessions is paramount. Sometimes the intention
is not innovation but deepening relationships, creating resonance, harmony,
communion. I am thinking this is an aspect of Open Space that isn't nearly
as well developed or understood as what's involved with innovating (where
posting sessions brings the unexpected). I believe that was the case in
the PoP session that I described in the orginal message. And I believe it
is what increasingly happens when people live more and more in OS, as
indicated by the trend towards fewer postings, more butterflying at
Spirited Work, not to mention conferences in general. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I think I used the term advanced
butterfly behavior because in OS, in a sense, butterflies are the central
organizing element for relational work. My hunch is something is wanting
to emerge that allows for the same quality of coming together with a purpose
centered on deeping relationship that posting sessions has for innovating.
With this relational purpose, I may want to make conscious choices about
who is there. And this brings the questions of inclusion/exclusion and
transparency/privacy front and center.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>My initial query was around the
transparency/privacy tension. Yet, what I realized from Tree's posting was
that underneath this tension lurks the question of inclusion/exclusion.
</FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>And it isn't excluding the wild
cards with the potential missed opportunity that tears at me. The
painful tension is when it is people I love, who may well have something
valuable to contribute, but for whatever reason - either consciously or
unconsciously - aren't included. I suspect we've all experienced being
left out and it isn't fun.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>It is in facing these incredibly
challenging tensions that we might find a form for deepening as elegant as what
serves innovating. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>In the most mature scenario, when a
group wants to convene among themselves (a la Ashley's co-creative whole),
why not post such gatherings (for women only)? Make them visible. Of
course, it's much tougher when the criteria are more nuanced (people with whom I
sense a resonance). Still, if posted, it isn't a drag on the energy
field. It acknowledges the desire for a particular configuration to
convene within the larger whole, in service in some way to the whole.
Somehow being transparently excluded seems more loving than doing something in
secret.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I think these are really tough tensions
to embrace. Because I also believe that we grow more conscious by living
in OS, I'm really wondering how to do this with integrity. There's a form
wanting to emerge...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>glad for the wonderful companions in this
inquiry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Peggy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist