<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Harrison,<br>
<br>
It seemed like you were having a problem with understanding when
you wrote the following:<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">"When
I was confronted with what was happening in Open Space (25
years ago) it made absolutely no sense to me at all. And what
makes no sense does not lend itself to understanding. I
“knew,” as did everybody else of my age, background and
training – that what seemed to be taking place in Open Space
simply could not happen. Organization was something that we
created, managed, and controlled."<br>
</span></blockquote>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
are so many theoretical frameworks that have begun to embody the
more adaptive systems thinking required maybe not to fully
understand, but to start to improve our models of organization
not something as something we impose - but something that we can
nurture, cultivate, or just open ourselves to experience.<br>
<br>
It seems like this thread has been about understanding
self-organization. I love that you brought something from
Quantum Mechanics that "somebody's formulation was good, but not
crazy enough to be true." This reminds me of the Tao Te Ching.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.<br>
<br>
It reminds me a lot of what you wrote in Spirit, and which you
mentioned in your TED talk. Story tellers don't tell the truth.
But in the story, truth emerges. Probably between the words.<br>
<br>
If we can hold our theories in the same fashion as "a likely
story", maybe we'll start being able to tell better stories
(theories).<br>
<br>
Harold<br>
</span><br>
On 1/10/14 5:08 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:001b01cf0e61$3a412c40$aec384c0$@net"
type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Harold
– I have no problem with “understanding.” Good and useful
enterprise. Question is: Understanding of what? And in what
frame or context. I think we have come to a point where we
“understand” </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
that there are multiple logics, each appropriate to different
senses of reality. Newtonian Physics really does work. AND
Quantum Mechanics was/is crazy. In fact one of the framers of
Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg I think) remarked that that
somebody’s formulation was good, but not crazy enough to be
true. Or something. I think we may be at a similar
paradigm/shift point. We’ll see how it all turn out.</span></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>