<div dir="ltr">So beautiful - thanks for posting this - there are so many great insights here> Skye<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Marie Ann Östlund <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marieann.ostlund@gmail.com" target="_blank">marieann.ostlund@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear all,<br><br></div>I hope you've had a wonderfully emergent holiday and I also take the opportunity to wish you all a beautiful year.<br>
<div>
<br>
I've been thinking about self-organization for some time now - or
holding the question of its meaning - as I haven't understood the
concept and the way we've talked about it. But this autumn the
penny dropped (!) for me (to some extent) and I could also understand why I make the
connections I do with OST and human nature, and, maybe, why others don't
make that same connection.<br>
<br>
I want to share my little penny with you and see how you understand
this, and would appreciate your input and some push-back. :) Warning - it's a bit long.<br>
<br>
Harrison, it was your response to Hege's thread earlier that
exemplified some of the things I struggle to understand, so you gave me
the perfect cue to put my thoughts together (Thank you!):<br>
<br>
"And there is an alternative. Just recognize (in your own mind) that
these folks (whoever they are...) are already “in” Open Space. They are
just doing it badly. Your “offer” is simply to help them to do what they
are already doing – but now with some understanding, expertise, and
style. Short take: you can help them to remember what they already know,
and having remembered, to do everything much better."<br>
<br>
I take this to mean that everyone is already self-organizing (are already "in" Open Space), but are doing it badly.<br>
<br>
If we then look at various types of human organisation, from larger
"organisms" like the financial and political systems, wars,
peace-movements, UN, patriarchy, etc to smaller units like families,
teams, etc - they must be examples of some form of self-organization.
Some are to our liking, some are not.<br>
<br>
Why do we think that some types of human organization are successful and
some not, if we're all self-organizing? What is the self-organization
done "badly", and the one done "well"? Why does OST <i>work</i>, as we sometimes
put it?<br>
<br>
The understanding I've come to is that one of the main differences lies
in the organizing principle or philosophy of the "organism". In simpler
or smaller systems the amount of principles might be fewer than in
larger ones (and thus simpler to manage and define). At the macro level,
countries organize themselves based on certain principles - like one of
the foundational principles of the US is the freedom to <i>be</i> religious and
freedom <i>from</i> the state (from Britain and its monarchy), while in France
freedom <i>from</i> religion is foundational and influence what citizens are allowed
to learn and wear in school or say in the public sphere, and in Sweden
the state (or previously the monarchy) have historically been the
guarantor and protector of individual freedom (against the aristocracy).
An even greater and deeper organizing principle we've adopted in the western hemisphere is the
idea of progress - that our societies invariably progress through
scientific and technological advances. And yes, all these ideas,
although found articulated by some powerful philosophers, are in a sense
a product of self-organization. However interesting the ideas, they
would go nowhere if people didn't accept/adopt/spread them or felt they
resonated with their own ideas and experiences. The way ideas evolve and
spread are certainly complex.<br>
<br>
I guess these various ideas and beliefs are interlaced into the
complicated weave we call culture, and influence how we live and
organise our lives together. Each country have certain "rules" and one
may call them organizing principles. A company can have organizing
principle/s - there are differences between how General Motors and Apple
are organized and what define ways to "get ahead" or succeed. A family
also have organizing principles (who's the boss, how decisions are made
etc).<br>
<br>
What makes OST a good way to self-organize is that it's organizing
principle is to take responsibility for what we love (the law of two
feet/mobility). I heard there was a discussion in the European Learning
Exchange recently about the rules of OST. OST seem rigid to some extent -
sit in circle, facilitator introduce the principles, law and market
place, off you go, evening and morning updates, closing circle etc. If
it's Open Space, why keep to these rules as we often come back to doing
OST in a certain way. Why do we (religiously) adhere to a certain format when doing OST - at least this is how I interpret the query hearing about it second hand.<br>
<br>
However, if we consider that we all self-organise, and many times it's
done badly, we need to create a space that is open and that allows
self-organisation to happen in the most optimal way possible. So we
create a bubble of Open Space that is as open space we can make it. The
principles help us free our minds enough to be present with what's
happening (and most importantly - with ourselves) and the law is the
organising principle - follow your heart (and use your feet to do so).
Take responsibility for what you love.<br>
<br>
What happens when we take responsibility for what we love? We feel
alive, we enjoy contributing to other peoples queries, we marvel at what
is created when we come together, and how our 'topic' was taken to
another level with other's contributions. We also marvel at what we
create when we come together. We enjoy giving and enjoy receiving. We
love and feel loving. That's not to say that we don't experience 'bad'
feelings in OS or don't experience frustrations, but (do correct me)
that's often to do with us not following our hearts as fully as we would
like to or we're in the messy chaotic part in our organizing process.<br>
<br>
So for me then, Open Space says something about me as a human being. It
says something about us all as human beings. It says that we love
contributing our unique offering to others, to a greater whole than us,
and we thrive when we're connected.<br>
<br>
My thesis then, is that the organizing principle of OS (take responsibility for what you love)
is an organising principle that is closer to our human nature than many other organizing-principles. That's why it <i>works</i>. We are loving beings, not destructive, violent, and
selfish as Hobbes surmised - that idea is btw still one of the basic
organizing principles in international relations (more or less). One of
the reasons some systems work better is that the organising principles are
more fitting to our needs and natures. And some may have worked for
some time but no longer does, as they have grown too rigid or not kept
up with time/development. They might have helped us from a worse
condition, but not fully hit home.<br>
<br>
To also address the question of rigidity in OST, what we do as facilitators is to create a particular bubble of OS; and as our bubble is created
within and around other self-organizing bubbles, we use rituals to communicate our ethos and to show that this bubble works in a different way than others. We show physically that we're doing
something else here than in other systems, by sitting in a circle, going
around it, etc. Rituals are powerful. If all system would use the same
organizing principle these rituals might no longer matter, or they would adopt the same.<br>
<br>
To summarise: yes, we do self-organise, but we organise around some
principles/ideas/philosophies. OS is a bubble of self-organisation that
works better than most as its organising principle is closer to human
nature. And no, I can't explain why the connection to human nature isn't
done more often, as I said I might do in the beginning. Sorry :)<br><br></div><div>But I think what I'm getting at, taking help from Harrison's image of dancing with Shiva, the dance between chaos and order - is that we can also look at OST from the point/perspective of Krishna's dance with the soul (rasa-lila - the dance of divine love). Away from the cosmic perspective is also the personal or individual view point, of what the dance can be that we create together in love and in relationship to each other. And that might tell a different story about who we are. <br>
</div><div>
<br>
I'd appreciate your thoughts, push-back, reflections. This is what makes sense to me now and I wanted to share it with you.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Marie Ann<br>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
OSList mailing list<br>
To post send emails to <a href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>
<a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><div><b>Skye Hirst, PhD</b><br></div>President - The Autognomics Institute<br></div><div><i>Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself</i><br></div>
<div><a href="http://www.autognomics.org" target="_blank">www.autognomics.org</a><br></div><div>@autognomics <br><br></div><div>New Phone Number:<br>207-593-8074<br></div><div><br></div></div>
</div>