<div dir="ltr"><div>was that a formal or informal end to the inquiry? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div> <br>--<br><br>Michael Herman<br>Michael Herman Associates<br><a href="http://MichaelHerman.com" target="_blank">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><br><a href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org" target="_blank">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a><br><br></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Mezick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@newtechusa.net" target="_blank">dan@newtechusa.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Now, wow! <br>
<br>
It appears Pernilla Luttropp may have some legitimately clairvoyant
powers! I mean seriously. She may be able to see the future.<br>
<br>
For example, she has (by all appearances) anticipated and fully
answered most of these questions, almost 10 full days in advance of
these questions actually being asked:<br>
<br>
<br>
Questions: from 10/8, yesterday:<span class=""><br>
<br>
<div><i>how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?
or participating on the list? </i><i>if everything in the essay
is true, what </i><i>should</i><i> the next wosonos invitation
process look like? </i><i>can we put this in practice terms? </i><i>what
is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing structurelessness?
what has anyone done in the past, in those instances you've
seen, that made some positive difference? <br>
</i></div>
</span><div><br>
<br>
Answers: from 9/30, almost 10 full days previous:<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><big><big><big>The countries/places
that wish to host a future WOSONOS could post this on
the OSLIST and Facebook and send a gentle reminder a few
weeks before the upcoming WOSONOS. The inviting hosts
would then be posted on a flip chart at the WOSONOS and
announced as a session when creating the bulletin board
or at the evening news. As always there is the
opportunity to add places, sessions and news
announcements up until the closing circle, both on the
spot and via other ways of communicating. This would
make it easier for everyone to approach the hosts,
express their delight or ask clarifying questions. It
would also enable the hosts (or their representatives)
to come together in a session and find out how they
would like to do the invitations in the closing circle.
Maybe some will wait until next year? Maybe multiple
WOSONOSes in one year? Maybe in different continents at
the same time? Maybe with different themes/urgent
questions?</big><br>
<br>
</big></big></span></font></font><span class=""><br>
<div>On 10/8/15 5:23 PM, Michael Herman
wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span class="">i love this bit about bucky the verb, harold.
<div><br>
</div>
</span><div>what i don't understand about this tyranny business is that
it sounds like somebody, the system or some people are doing
some other people wrong.  alternatively, that somehow
-- naturally or maybe just unconsciously or unintentionally --
winners and losers, ins and outs, are being created.  i
can't tell if the suggestion is that this is a malicious thing
to be defeated, a natural thing to observe, or some kind of
problem to be solved.  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>leaving aside those instances when people do truly horrible
things to others, how does this tyranny story square with the
core open space story that each of us is ultimately
responsible for our own experience, we all have two feet or
some equivalent and need to use them for ourselves?  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>how does this essay inform your practice of opening space?
 or participating on the list?  if everything in
the essay is true, what should the next wosonos invitation
process look like?  can we put this in practice terms?
 what is one to do in the presence of tyrannizing
structurelessness?  what has anyone done in the past,
in those instances you've seen, that made some positive
difference?  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <span class=""><br>
--<br>
<br>
Michael Herman<br>
Michael Herman Associates<br>
<a href="http://MichaelHerman.com" target="_blank">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><br>
<a href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org" target="_blank">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a><br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:41 PM,
Michael Herman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@michaelherman.com" target="_blank">michael@michaelherman.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">you've made my statement a little stronger
than i did, daniel.  i said i didn't see the
connection, not that there wasn't one.  i'm
catching up here not resisting.  i'm inquiring.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>in the situation of osonos, it seems to me that we
have a formal practice, written up in the users guide,
wherein it is written that anyone can post a topic and
people will have the right to choose what they want to
attend.  but we don't actually do that in
selecting osonos sites.  we often default
informally to old habits like voting.  or said
another way, i guess i can't quite determine what is
formal and informal structure, or which one is maybe
running over the other.  we have oslist faq's but
probably not many people read and live by them.
 it would seem we're not at a loss for formal
structure, we just prefer to operate by informal habits.
 that's not uncommon, is it?  harrison's
line about, "if we did business here the way we say we
do business, we'd be out of business," comes to mind.
 and the union tactic of working to rule.
 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>so is the question you're asking here about the
relative value of formal and informal structures?
 are you suggesting formal structures are better
than informal?  am i still missing something?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><span><br clear="all">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <span class=""><br>
--<br>
<br>
Michael Herman<br>
Michael Herman Associates<br>
<a href="http://MichaelHerman.com" target="_blank">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><br>
<a href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org" target="_blank">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a><br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</span>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:41
AM, Daniel Mezick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@newtechusa.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dan@newtechusa.net" target="_blank">dan@newtechusa.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""> Greeting
All, Greeeetings Michael,<br>
<br>
<br>
Wow. Michael. Seriously. You can really type
(and talk) a blue streak. You know? You're
wearing me out...<br>
<br>
...no no, just kidding. I'm not QUITE exhausted
yet...I've had time to rest up! <br>
<br>
So, by all means keep it coming. I'm rested and
ready!<br>
<br>
<br>
....Now: A couple things do stand out here:<br>
<br>
<br>
1. The Tyranny of Inquiry? <br>
================<br>
Michael, you say:<span><br>
"i notice that you said in your first message
that you find this "extremely interesting" <b>but
you've yet to say why.</b>"<br>
<br>
</span> Wait. Stop right there. <br>
<br>
Earlier, you ask: <br>
<span>
<div>"<b>Is it not some kind of tyranny</b> we
all attempt over and over again <b>when we
expect and insist that the world explain
itself to/for us?</b>"<br>
</div>
<br>
</span> (brief pause of silence here, for an
ironic, even paradoxical effect....)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></span>
Seriously. Inquiry is good!ÂÂÂ
There is no tyranny to be found in it.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I like the essay because it speaks to a really,
really, important topic, namely: <br>
<br>
The various problems with informal
authority-distribution, inside groups that
devalue "structure," or value other things
-over- "structure."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also like this essay because it feels very
timely and pertinent with respect to Pernilla
Luttropp's recent (and important) post on
decision-making, entitled: "An invitation to
future invitations to WOSONOS."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Some Disconnected Dots?<br>
==================<br>
<br>
You express:<span><br>
<br>
"i'm having some trouble connecting "elites,"
"movement," "authorization" and some other
terms in the essay to my experience in open
space and on the list. the essay seems to want
to fix a problem, <b>but one that's not
familiar to me, at least not as a sort of
thing to be solved."</b><br>
<br>
<br>
</span> I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly,
Michael, that you have completely examined this
essay. <br>
<br>
<br>
To be clear: You are not familiar with <i>any</i>
of the many problems (not even one) described in
this essay? <br>
<br>
If you are familiar with any of these, then you
see them as <i>"not as a sort of thing to be
solved?"</i><br>
<br>
(For the record, the term "authorization" does
not appear anywhere in this essay. The term
"authority" does appear 5 times.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now: We've recently had exactly the type of
concerns the essay addresses, voiced right here
on OSLIST recently. <br>
<br>
You yourself are a heavy contributor Pernilla
Luttropp's post, "An invitation to future
invitations to WOSONOS." <br>
<br>
<br>
Here is a part of that, provided for convenience
(I copied this verbatim from the post, with my
emphasis added...)<br>
<br>
<br>
<BEGIN><br>
<i>"At the inspiring WOSONOS in Krakow there
were some learning conversations on how this
community goes about when expressing and
accepting</i><em> invitations from
countries/places to host the upcoming
WOSONOSes. In the big circle <b>there were
voices that expressed some confusion and
discomfort </b>with the process...</em><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><em>"...<b>There seems to be something
unclear</b> about the "tradition" <b>on how
to get information about who is inviting and
why. </b>If that information were <b>transparent
from the very start </b>of the WOSONOS, it
might enable more dialogue with the inviting
hosts and between the hosts."<br>
<END><br>
<br>
</em> <br>
This expression by Pernilla is about how
decisions. About how future-WOSONOS-venues are
identified, developed, and then authorized.<br>
<br>
This issue does pertain quite directly, I think,
to the essay. Right? I wonder if others reading
agree, or disagree. <br>
<br>
Either way, it is always great when a new voice
shows up!<br>
<br>
Here is the specific part of the essay that
clearly pertains: emphasis added...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<BEGIN><br>
<big>For everyone to have the opportunity to be
involved in a given group and to participate
in its activities <b>the structure must be
explicit, not implicit. The rules of
decision-making must be open and available
to everyone, and this can happen only if
they are formalized.</b> This is not to say
that formalization of a structure of a group
will destroy the informal structure. It
usually doesn't. But it does hinder the
informal structure from having predominant
control and make available some means of
attacking it if the people involved are not at
least responsible to the needs of the group at
large. </big><em><br>
<END></em><br>
<br>
<br>
I wonder if anyone else (besides Michael) thinks
that these two items, what Pernilla is saying
and what this essay is saying, are in no way
related?
</div></div><div>
<div><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 10/7/15 4:48 PM, Michael Herman
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">wasn't actually intended as
personal feedback, daniel.  was
meant to be a comment on the territory
we all share, even when we might, any of
us, feel in the moment like an outsider,
that disorientation is actually a part
of being included in the experience of
open space.  ÂÂÂ
<div><br>
</div>
<div>as for the essay, i guess i'm still
a little unclear about the connection.
 open space doesn't strike me
as any sort of striving for
structurelessness.  and i've
seen both formal and informal
structure arise in open space.
 harrison's term in his
"millennial organization" book and
what i've seen happen is "appropriate
levels of structure and control."
 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>the oslist doesn't seem
structureless, either.  there
are all kinds of limiting and
supporting structures that make it
possible.  and then there are
the customs we've developed, like it's
common and desired for people to reply
to the whole list with answers to
questions, and even personal stories
and sidebars, rather than always
taking that stuff to private emails.
 much of the informal stuff was
captured in chris corrigan's oslist
faq's i mentioned earlier.  and
these things change.  the
address changed.  the admin
changed.  the archives moved
but survived, thanks to harold.
 now we allow attachments.
 the archives were private and
later became publicly searchable.
 new people show up all the
time, and join in.  the user's
non-guide (ebook) captured one great
moment in joining when julie smith
showed up very new to all of this,
asked some great questions, and
sparked all kinds of conversation on
many important dimensions of the
practice.  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>maybe your definition of structure
will also define structureless.
 i guess i don't know what ever
could be structureless, in line wiht
chris' story... except that
everything's moving, it's all flow, as
harrison says.  but maybe those
two stories aren't at odds, either...
some bits are just more dense or more
slowly flowing than others, but it's
all flow in the end.  is flow
structureless? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>is the tyranny of structurelessness
just to say that everything's moving,
and moving on, even the parts we
really like, and that can make for
some difficult experiences... that
would also be nobody's fault, but just
part of the shared condition?
 uncomfortable in spots, to be
sure, but nobody's and no system's
"fault" or "responsibility?"  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>as mentioned earlier, OS and the
circle don't make people equal.
 some will always be better,
faster, stronger, more attractive,
more connected than others.  is
thta a problem to be solved?
 i'm having some trouble
connecting "elites," "movement,"
"authorization" and some other terms
in the essay to my experience in open
space and on the list.  the
essay seems to want to fix a problem,
but one that's not familiar to me, at
least not as a sort of thing to be
solved.  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>why is this essay important for
you?  how does it inform your
understanding and practice of open
space?  or your participation
on the oslist?  are we a
movement?  are you an elite?
 is open space at risk of being
taken over?  help me make the
connection(s)?  </div><span class="">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>i notice that you said in your
first message that you find this
"extremely interesting" but you've yet
to say why.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><div> </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <span class=""><br>
--<br>
<br>
Michael Herman<br>
Michael Herman Associates<br>
<a href="http://MichaelHerman.com" target="_blank">http://MichaelHerman.com</a><br>
<a href="http://OpenSpaceWorld.org" target="_blank">http://OpenSpaceWorld.org</a><br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Oct 7,
2015 at 2:25 PM, Daniel Mezick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@newtechusa.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dan@newtechusa.net" target="_blank">dan@newtechusa.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div><span class=""> Yo Michael, <br>
<br>
The whole
"story-context-is-missing" thing
is really just a sidebar to the
important (and much wider) issues
around authority. <br>
<br>
These authority-issues are raised
by the subject essay, "The Tyranny
of Structurelessness." What a
great essay!<br>
<br>
Story-context is a really, really
important topic though, especially
if "missing-context" does have at
least the potential to evoke
feelings of exclusion, in at least
some members of the list.<br>
<br>
Regarding some of the things you
are saying:<br>
<br></span>
You say, "Exclusion is the
illusion. A little bit of errant
and temporary
mental structure."<span class=""><br>
<br>
I say, my current belief is that
my feelings are not illusion
whatsoever, nor are they error.
Rather they are real and valid,
human emotions. They are emotions
which, when experienced fully, are
in fact an essential aspect of
living well.<br>
<br>
<br></span>
You say, "...I notice the word
tyranny again in the subject. Is
it not some kind of tyranny we all
attempt over and over again when
we expect and insist that
the world explain itself to/for
us?"<span class=""><br>
<br>
I say, my current belief is that
inquiry is not simply important,
it is in fact essential. Inquiry
is good.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In any event, and as always, I do
appreciate your feedback. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am now keen to get back to the
main topic ! <br>
<br>
I wonder how we might, in the here
and now, go about defining the
term "structure," for purposes of
further discussing issues raised
by this essay with much more
clarity. <br>
<br>
That's a question I'm keen to
explore with you, and the other
members of this list, inside this
thread.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Daniel <br>
<a href="http://www.Prime-OS.com" target="_blank">http://www.Prime-OS.com</a>
</span><div>
<div><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 10/6/15 11:56 AM,
Michael Herman wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite">Yes
and Daniel, there are the
words of a story and the
feeling/meaning of it. I
considered writing a longer
message in the telling of
this story, but I wanted to
transmit as much of the
spirit/experience of
it as I could.ÂÂÂ
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ralph didn't offer any
explanation of his
observation that morning.
He did just like I said,
got up in a morning
news circle, it was an
OTgathering as I
noted but that
doesn't matter, it was
open space and morning
news. He said his piece
and sat down. The
experience for me, and
others I have learned only
later, was stunning
and disorienting, for
sure.  </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I thought to
honor and convey
this
experience through
some measure of similar
brevity in
my retelling. Maybe
this is what you picked up
on. The disorienting magic
of Ralph's moment. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are moments in
open space of surprise and
disconnect, maybe
frustration or confusion
or misunderstanding or
disorientation and even
disappointment that arise
in open space. This we all
know and have
experienced. This,
to me, is not so much a
thing to be solved but the
nature of the territory.
It just is. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
Ralph never
did explain his
statement, as far as I know.
He had something to say and
he said it. That was his
only job. After that, each
of us had to figure out for
ourselves what, if
anything, to do with
his story, to decide if it
was wisdom or wisecrack. The
storyteller, I think, has
only the responsibility for
finding and sharing what's
true for him/her.ÂÂÂ
The rest is up to
us.ÂÂÂ
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe this
points to the learning and
challenge that we
all have in open space,
namely learning to trust
more and more that we
already are always
included in a flow that is
bigger and deeper or
whatever than we can see
or understand or
articulate sometimes.
Exclusion is the
illusion. A little bit of
errant and temporary
mental structure.
Discomfort is not a
problem (and can't be
solved by anyone!); it's a
trail marker.ÂÂÂ
Which is to say about
exclusion and missing out,
"welcome!"  The
good news is, and the bad
news is, you're
in! And, it's all
still happening
Now. <span></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As I scroll up to send
tha now, I notice the word
tyranny again in the
subject. Is it not some
kind of tyranny we all
attempt over and over
again when we expect
and insist that the
world explain itself
to/for us? Is this
not something of our
central challenge,
something all of us
work with? The
edge of open space is an
end of comfortable,
conventional understanding?ÂÂÂ
Or something?<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class=""><br>
<br>
On Tuesday, October
6, 2015, Daniel
Mezick via OSList
<<a href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org" target="_blank">oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div><span class=""> Hi Harrison,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the
tips on how to
search OSLIST
and Google, etc.
I did do those
things actually.
However, that's
a bit of an
effort,
especially
searching the
OSLIST archives.
I guess I could
eventually pick
up OSLIST
culture that
way, little by
little. I
suppose an
earnest person
with loads of
time could sift
through OSLIST
archives to
figure this
culture out. The
hard way. <br>
<br>
However, like
the SPIRIT book
teaches, there
is nothing like
a good story to
convey culture.
The kind of
story with a
beginning, a
middle and an
end.<br>
<br>
I notice that,
when you are the
one referring to
a certain
OS-mythos story,
you usually tend
to include the
short list of
pertinent
details, the
essential
details that
provide the
essential
context, so the
reader can
follow along,
and engage.<br>
<br>
And I'm always
grateful for
that, as it
helps me to
follow along,
and get what you
are referring
to, and more
fully understand
the story, and
feel oddly
included in the
story. <br>
<br>
<br>
Earlier, I
express how not
having the
context tends to
(for me) arouse
feelings of:
exclusion,
cluelessness,
and a general
lack of
membership in
whatever
"historic-OS-mythos-episode"
is being
referred to.
Sort of an "out
group" feeling.
You know?
Sometimes, I
wonder what the
poster might be
thinking by
posting random
fragments of a
"you had to be
there" kind of
story. Other
times, I wonder
if other readers
are also feeling
these feelings.
Or if it is
"just me."<br>
<br>
And so: I am
very grateful
for your
stories, in part
because you
include the
pertinent
details, and in
so doing, make
me (for one)
feel included. <br>
<br>
So thanks for
including the
context in your
stories. It
makes them fun,
and easy to
follow. OSLIST
culture
certainly has
it's quirks, and
for me, your
stories make
this culture
easier to figure
out, and
navigate, and
enjoy.<br>
<br>
<br>
Getting back to
the Tyranny of
Structurelessness:
<br>
<br>
Do you think
these 3
assertions by
the author are
actually true?
Do these ideas
have legs?<br>
<ul>
<li><i><span lang="ES-TRAD">This
hegemony can
be so easily
established
because the
idea of
"structurelessness"
does not
prevent the
formation of
informal
structures,
only formal
ones.</span></i></li>
<li><span><span><span></span></span></span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD">For
everyone to
have the
opportunity to
be involved in
a given group
and to
participate in
its
activities,
the structure
must be
explicit, not
implicit. </span></i></li>
<li><i><span lang="ES-TRAD">It
is this
informal
structure,
particularly
in
Unstructured
groups, which
forms the
basis for
elites.</span></i></li>
</ul>
<br>
Daniel <br>
<br>
<div>On 10/6/15
10:04 AM,
Harrison Owen
wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite">
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dan,
Google can
often help. <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/#q=ralph+copleman</a>
</span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>ho</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p><span class="">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
OSList [<a href="mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org" target="_blank">mailto:oslist-bounces@lists.openspacetech.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf
Of </b>Daniel
Mezick via
OSList<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Monday,
October 05,
2015 4:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
Harrison Owen;
World wide
Open Space
Technology
email list<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [OSList]
The Tyranny of
Structurelessness</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="">Howdy
Harrison,<br>
<br>
Thanks for
describing the
context of the
Ralph Copleman
story- I'm
very thankful
for that info.<br>
<br>
I notice that,
lots of times
here, there
are references
made to
notable OST
episodes, and
situations
from times
past... <br>
<br>
...the
"OST-mythos"
as it were. <br>
<br>
These mythical
stories often
have me
wondering what
I missed, and
what I might
now be
missing.
(Being
clueless as I
am.) <br>
<br>
I'm sure these
story-fragment
postings are
not posted
with intent to
exclude
anyone, or to
be
discourteous,
or unkind.
More like:
some good old
basic
camaraderie is
taking place
between some
old friends.<br>
<br>
Still: Do
these
"inside-story-fragments"
on OSLIST tend
to evoke
feelings of
exclusion in
readers who
were <i>not</i>
there at the
time? <br>
<br>
Not sure. <br>
<br>
<CONFESSION><br>
<br></span>
As for me,
personally, I
sometimes find
myself
experiencing
curiously odd
feelings of
exclusion,
when a
told-fragment
of an old
OST-mythos
story lacks
explicit
context. So I
can follow the
story, you
know? The
terms
"outsider" or
"clueless"
orÂÂÂ
"not in the
story"
describe these
feelings
fairly well.
"Not invited?"<span class=""><br>
<br>
I sometimes
wonder if some
of the
hundreds of <i>other</i>
members of
OSLIST ever
feel this
way...or if it
is "just me."
<br>
<br>
</CONFESSION><br>
<br>
Daniel <br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p><span class="">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 10/4/15
2:59 PM,
Harrison Owen
via OSList
wrote:</p>
</div>
</span><blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>â</span><span>€œEverything</span><span>
is
moving.â</span><span>€
ÂÂÂÂ
.... Michael
-- I remember
that moment
very</span><span>
well. And Dan,
Iâ</span><span>€™m
not sure the
context, etc,
would help</span><span>
very much. But
just for the
record the odd
phrase popped
out at one of
the
International
Symposia on
Organization
Transformation
which happened
to be taking
place at a
small college
south of
Seattle. I
have no idea
why Ralph said
what he did,
and Iâ</span><span>€™m
not sure Ralph
did either.
But then again</span><span>
a lot of
marvelous
stuff seems to
burst out with
no obvious
logic train.
Indeed it may
be that the
lack of logic
train enables
the thought?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Whatever
the genesis,
the phrase
wandered about
my head for
some time,
quite
unattached,
and it also
happened that
I was working
my way slowly
through one of
the
masterpieces
of 20<sup>th</sup>
century
western
philosophy
when a fuzzy
connection
began to form.
The work was
that of Alfred
North
Whitehead, and
the title:
â</span><span>€œProcess
and
Reality.â€
I’ve
been through
the</span><span>
book probably
4-5 times, and
I am frank to
confess that I
donâ</span><span>€™t
think I really
understand</span><span>
it. But then
again
Iâ</span><span>€™ve</span><span>
heardÂÂÂÂ
a number of
people with
much greater
credentials,
tenure, etc
â</span><span>€“
say the same
thing. But I
did get that
it</span><span>
had something
to do with,
â</span><span>€œEverything
is
moving.â€
And</span><span>
the more I
thought and
read, the more
I felt that
the good
philosopher
had made a
small mistake
on his title.
It
shouldnâ</span><span>€™t
be
“Process</span><span>
<i>and</i>
Reality,â</span><span>€
but rather</span><span>
â</span><span>€œProcess</span><span>
<b>is</b>
Reality.â</span><span>€
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Now,
Anna Caroline
we come to
â</span><span>€œstructure,â€
or perhaps I</span><span>
should say the
fallacy of
Structure? Yes
I know
â</span><span>€“
we’</span><span>ve all been taught that
structure is
the precursor,
the â</span><span>€œdeterminatorâ€
of everything.
My face looks
as it does</span><span>
because of my
bone
structure. My
life proceeds
the way it
does because
of my social
structure. My
business works
as it does
because of the
organizational
structure. And
of course,
meetings
happen the way
they do
because of
meeting
structure,
which
apparently is
the prime
domain of
â</span><span>€œfacilitators.â€
And even if we
hadn’t
been</span><span>
â</span><span>€œtaughtâ€
all this, the
primacy of
structure
would appear</span><span>
to be
blatantly
obvious
â</span><span>€“
as plain as
the nose on
your</span><span>
face. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Unfortunately,
it does seem
to turn out
that sometimes
the blatantly
obvious is not
necessarily
so. For
example just
looking at
things it is
pretty clear
that the world
is flat, or at
the least
bumpy flat.
And any fool
can see that
we are the
center of it
all â</span><span>€“
Sun, moon, and
stars whiz
around
us. </span><span>
But when we
think about
it, as we have
been doing for
the last
500-600 years,
the obvious
isnâ</span><span>€™t
so obvious.</span><span>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It
is reasonable
to ask what
would start to
make us think
differently
â</span><span>€“
to the point
that we begin
to question
the</span><span>
obvious, and
even come to
see things in
a different
way? Taking a
leap, I will
suggest that
it all begins
with the
perception of
anomaly.
Things just
donâ</span><span>€™t
make sense. O</span><span>ur
eyes tell us
one thing...
but???? And
then we start
making up
stories to
explain the
apparently
unexplainable.
We imagine
different ways
of looking at
things so that
the
nonsensical
makes sense.
Some of those
stories get
pretty
strange, but
if they
actually work
â</span><span>€“
that is to
say, help</span><span>
us to see in
new and useful
ways â</span><span>€“
that’s
great</span><span>!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>There
is, of course,
a proper term
for the
activity I
have been
describing. It
is called
Theory
Building. And
for whatever
it is worth,
â</span><span>€œtheoryâ€
comes from the
G</span><span>reek
â</span><span>€œ</span><i><span>theoreinâ</span></i><i><span>€
</span></i><span>
â</span><span>€“
to see. In a
word, theories
are ways of
looking at</span><span>
things
â</span><span>€“
likely stories
you might say.</span><span>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Now,
at long last
(too long?) we
come to the
odd story I
was starting
to tell, to
the effect
that Structure
is only a
figment of our
imagination, a
flash frame of
a moment gone
by.
Interesting,
and helpful
under some
circumstances...
but always
partial and in
a sense
illusory.
Whatâ</span><span>€™s</span><span>
â</span><span>€œreallyâ€
happening is
all flow.
Everything is
moving
–</span><span>
Thatâ</span><span>€™s
Ralph’s
</span></p></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>...<br><br>[Message clipped] </blockquote></div><br></div>