<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [OSList] From linkedin today</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>I so enjoy reading about your different perspectives on "self-organisation", most of them makes perfect sense to me.<BR>
<BR>
Still, when I have a room full of men/white/adults/heterosexuals/professionals - pick the majority of your choice - and one or maybe two single voices of women/black/youngsters/homosexuals/amateurs, where the tool for contact is spoken and written words, often well formulated on what is considered "relevant" for the group, I feel uncomfortable. <BR>
That doesn't necessarily mean that I as the facilitator need to fix anything and there is always the opportunity for the minority to leave the room. But I still feel uncomfortable. I've seen that "natural" behaviour in a group many times; the majority either ignores the minority or makes a big thing out of their "otherness". The minority don't get to be individuals, just representatives. And the individuals in the majority group easily become an unreflected "we", very comfortable in what is considered to be "normal". To me that's another "natural-or-it's-been-around-forever" behaviour. And I'm not comfortable when I see it being reproduced over and over again. When someone from the minority brings this up with me, I usually remind them of their two feet. But it makes me sad to see them leave the room. Something else could have happened and I was there, both as a human fellow being and a facilitator, feeling uncomfortable.<BR>
<BR>
But feeling uncomfortable isn't necessarily bad, there's movement in that feeling. And I'm not sure it has to be fixed. But I'd like to hear if anyone else shares this feeling and your thoughts on it. <BR>
<BR>
Pernilla<BR>
from Sweden<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Den 2014-01-23 21:55, skrev "Michael Herman" <<a href="michael@michaelherman.com">michael@michaelherman.com</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>well, i've managed to catch up on quite a heap of oslist emails without typing even one peep, but here i am at the last message of the last thread and i can't resist chiming in, if only to help make sense of all this for myself...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
david said along the way something about holding space for coherence. i think we hold the space for both coherence and fragmentation. we never really know which one will come up more strongly, or when. both are just stories or labels or guesses we wrap around the aggregation of a the various two-feet decisions that participants make and make and make all through an event. <BR>
<BR>
in this way, what we're really holding space for is individuals' right or opportunity to choose for themselves. we can invite them to come together and be quiet, but some linger in side conversations in hallways or corners. sometimes everyone lingers, and evening news happens later than we thought. sometimes we suggest that morning news is over at 9:30 and the circle lasts until 10, because many people choose to stay in the circle together. it's always the sum of everyone deciding at once. <BR>
<BR>
if anyone would try to control this, invade the space of individual choosing, sometimes the best we can do is leave the room, as harrison has described many times, modeling a choice. in that case it's pointing to fragmentation in the face of an attempt to force coherence. <BR>
<BR>
anyway, the other question that caught my eye was christine's something about how to help organization stay healthy and alive. it reminded me of a quote i carried in my wallet for about 10 years or so, from francisco varela (a scientist, among other things): "if a living system is unhealthy, the way to make it more healthy is to reconnect it with more of itself." <BR>
<BR>
stories and invitations and questions (are these really different or separable?) seem to be a very common way to connect, and then truth must be what bubbles up in the spaces, between the words, as harold mentioned, and between the people, between the breakouts and the plenaries, and so on that peggy described in the physical movements. <BR>
<BR>
so i think where i end up here is that self-organization is already always happening because everyone is always moving and deciding, and the "big" decisions in any "organization" can only ever be the high peaks, visible from some distance, that sit atop the many many individual moves and choices, piled up over any length of time. <BR>
<BR>
so maybe stories are the words we wrap around piles of choices, and organizations show up as the people who choose to wrap themselves around various stories? <BR>
<BR>
michael h<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
<BR>
Michael Herman<BR>
Michael Herman Associates<BR>
312-280-7838 (mobile)<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://MichaelHerman.com">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><BR>
<a href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Daniel Mezick <<a href="dan@newtechusa.net">dan@newtechusa.net</a>> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Yes, and play is fun. Play is invigorating. Play brings action. Play brings movement. Life is action. Life is movement!<BR>
<BR>
An entertaining example of play ... action and movement from some surprising players, in open space:<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://youtu.be/Iqmba7npY8g">http://youtu.be/Iqmba7npY8g</a><BR>
<BR>
"Let us play"...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/11/14 3:03 PM, Harold Shinsato wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
Harrison,<BR>
<BR>
I was going to ask you to say more about "High Play", but it was easy to learn more about your ideas here with a quick google search. From <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/Opening%20Space%20for%20The%20Question.htm">http://www.openspaceworld.com/Opening%20Space%20for%20The%20Question.htm</a>. The emphasis is mine.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>High Play denotes the manner in which the people involved approach their task – playfully. Quite often play is understood to be a trivial incidental compared to the real business of living. I think this is a profound error. Play for me may be the most serious (important) of our many undertakings. The importance of play derives from the fact that when we experience reality in different and unexpected ways, <B>we seek to understand (develop knowledge about) our new experience by telling likely stories, or in more formal terms, creating theories</B>. We take the available evidence, combined with our prior experience and try to construct reasonable explanations for the newly observed phenomenon. Almost inevitably our first attempts are flawed, and it is often the case that there are as many theories (stories) as people telling them. If everybody treats their version as the “gospel truth” it is not long before the dead hand of dogma descends, and the search for understanding degenerates into a fight amongst ideologues. On the other hand, when people treat their new adventure in a playful fashion, there may well be serious competition, but there is also deep respect for the “opponents,” and a real joy in the game. In Open Space it is very common to see the game of knowledge building played with real skill and enjoyment – even by people who have never done anything like that before.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> I really like the presence of "real joy in the game" of finding the best likely stories (theories). I also love the value you express for "deep respect for the 'opponents'".<BR>
<BR>
Game on!<BR>
<BR>
Harold<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/11/14 11:58 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Harold – I like your last line, “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).” Actually, my words for this are High Play. I’ve found that good theory building is best done playfully, which does not make it a trivial activity, but it does guard against dogmatism. Good theory, playfully created, and playfully held is always open to revision – or just plain discard. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Harrison<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Harrison Owen<BR>
<BR>
7808 River Falls Dr.<BR>
<BR>
Potomac, MD 20854<BR>
<BR>
USA<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)<BR>
<BR>
Camden, Maine 04843<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093> <BR>
<BR>
(summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
www.openspaceworld.com <<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com%20">http://www.openspaceworld.com%20</a>> <BR>
<BR>
www.ho-image.com <<a href="http://www.ho-image.com%20">http://www.ho-image.com%20</a>> (Personal Website)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#1F497D"><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <<a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a>> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><B>From:</B> <a href="oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org">oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org</a> [<a href="mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org">mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org</a>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Harold Shinsato<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 10, 2014 7:55 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> World wide Open Space Technology email list<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSList] From linkedin today<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Harrison,<BR>
<BR>
It seemed like you were having a problem with understanding when you wrote the following:<BR>
<BR>
"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>
<BR>
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>
<BR>
On 1/10/14 5:08 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
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></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#1F497D"><FONT FACE="Wingdings">J</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> 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.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>