<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">"<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">our
current discussion of Gaming (Game theory, Finite and Infinite
Games, etc). [...] I still don’t understand how it advances our
understanding of our world as encountered in Open Space, and
more specifically, how it enables me to more effectively
navigate that world for myself, and with others, who may choose
the journey."<br>
<br>
There are two beautifully contradictory answers to this:<br>
<br>
1) It makes no difference.<br>
2) It makes worlds and worlds of difference.<br>
<br>
I experience much truth in both answers. And looking at those
"answers" as conversations, there are many more questions in
each answer. Are both conversations truly welcome?<br>
<br>
Let me speak to conversation one. People encountering Open Space
for the first time don't need more than those 10-15 minutes to
be invited to play in it. In fact, adding much more to those
minutes usually starts crowding out the voice of the new person
being invited in.<br>
<br>
What about people wanting to facilitate Open Space? There are
multiple books. Multiple trainings. Does one really need more
than the description of OST on wikipedia to do it? If that
becomes an excuse for not setting up an Open Space that's ready
to happen - then I say the answer is No No No! You're ready, you
can do it, you can learn as you go.<br>
<br>
I'm sure I could go on and on with scenarios where more than the
basics is not helpful.<br>
<br>
That said, I'm still wishing there were more space for
conversation 2. Hey, maybe I'm hallucinating, but it's
persistently feeling like the people in conversation one are
saying "You shouldn't be in conversation two". Psychological
safety? I'm not feeling it.<br>
<br>
Harold<br>
<br>
</span><br>
On 10/24/13 2:38 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301ced0f8$f6ccd950$e4668bf0$@net"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Anne
– I noticed your pebble! And I think you are dead right.
Magnificent, complex, living systems simply defy capture in a
single frame. It isn’t their problem, it is the problem of our
language... always too small to do the job. But I don’t see
that as a “problem” either. For me it is really an opportunity
and an invitation to keep framing and reframing. It just gets
richer, and the conversation continues. I think we only get in
trouble when we (whoever “we” is) get stuck in the “one right
way” syndrome. Even controversy is valuable, if only because
it offers the chance to refine our pictures. And best of all,
allows us to hold several pictures at the same time...
especially when they are contradictory. Sort of the Wave and
Particle kind of thing. It is always tempting to ask which one
is the right one? And the answer is clearly, Both. It just
depends on how you are looking at things. Marvelous!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All
that said, I do have to confess to being a died in the wool,
American Pragmatist. I can usually always see the value of
somebody else’s picture, but then I have to ask – What does it
do? What does it do to enable me to perform some needed
function, understand my current reality with greater clarity,
get on with the business, so to speak. I also find it useful
to combine pragmatism with a good dose of Occam’s Razor – AKA
The Law of Parsimony. There are lots of ways of describing the
“law” – but it could be, “How can you say the most with the
fewest words?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
suppose that is just academic obfuscation... but it does have
a lot to do with our current discussion of Gaming (Game
theory, Finite and Infinite Games, etc). I know a fair amount
of the literature, have used the approach in multiple
situations creating policy and practice... and I still don’t
understand how it advances our understanding of our world as
encountered in Open Space, and more specifically, how it
enables me to more effectively navigate that world for myself,
and with others, who may choose the journey. Doubtless this is
a case of the hardening of the senile neuro-pathways, but that
is where I is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks
for the Pebble!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Harrison</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Harold Shinsato<br>
<a href="mailto:harold@shinsato.com">harold@shinsato.com</a><br>
<a href="http://shinsato.com">http://shinsato.com</a><br>
twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/hajush">@hajush</a></div>
</body>
</html>