Some how Jean's blog on FLOW will not let me upload this comment. I tried several times, so I am uploading it to my own blog. See comments to this post.
My response to Jean's blog on FLOW: http://ephemerati.wordpress.com/
What an interesting door to open. I think there is a lot to say about FLOW as well. It reminds me of the age of the late 60’s – early 70’s hippee, flower child. Perhaps the flower children were more in touch with the universe (using your meditation reference). Your post brought this to mind: I see three levels of flow.
1. Pure flow with no parameters. This picture is similar to the theory of how even out of chaos comes structure. (see http://www.ldolphin.org/chaos.html or http://www.asklepia.org/crpjourneys/creativechaos.html) In Mazza’s (1995) interview with Graywolf, Graywolf states, “Chaos and creativity are really synonyms” (p. 1)
2. Flow with parameters. As you stated needing the right questions, frame, moments of silence, and cues.
3. No or limited flow. Is flow always the best method? For example, every Monday afternoon, we had grade level meetings. Everyone dreaded these meetings because they lasted so very long. All the (for example) 4th grade teachers would talk about the 4th grade curriculum, plan, approaches for subject levels, etc. The meetings lasted a long time because of the flow. I think there is a problem when everyone dreads a meeting rather than feels it is productive, helpful, or a valuable use of time.
So my question is: Is flow always good? Or are there better times to have flow and other times not? And if so, when?
Reference Mazza, P. (1995). Creative chaos: How the mind uses chaos to make new connections. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.asklepia.org/crpjourneys/creativechaos.html
Realize there is a connection between the hippie era and computers.
To item #1: I can see the similarity of making order out of chaos, as with FLOW there is a synthesis of many things, and I think elements of serendipity.
To item #2. I did not impose parameters; this is a means to attain flow, rather than an imposed order. Of course, there are other ways to achieve flow. Athletes for example do this in different ways; visualization comes to mind as one aspect or way they might achieve flow.
To item #3: I think you are off the mark on this one (unless you meant 'the meetings lasted a long time because of LACK of flow.' Certainly what you have described is not the flow Csikszentmihalyi described as “effortless concentration and enjoyment,” rather those meetings you described are something based in time under what sounds to me like poor meeting management. Conversely, Csikszentmihalyi’s flow is described as a sense of timelessness. For your meetings perhaps you could suggest people check out Peter Scholtes’ Team Handbook, or The Team Memory Jogger, both printed through Joiner. These talk about basic meeting rules for example; always have an agenda, set a specific time, participants are allowed tell others if they are diverging from the topic at hand, and so on.
To your questions, I think that trying to achieve a purposeful and meaningful life is part of flow, and if one can apply it to as many aspects as possible it’s not bad. I don’t know that it is something that can be achieved as a group, but is certainly something to strive for individually.
2 comments:
My response to Jean's blog on FLOW:
http://ephemerati.wordpress.com/
What an interesting door to open. I think there is a lot to say about FLOW as well. It reminds me of the age of the late 60’s – early 70’s hippee, flower child. Perhaps the flower children were more in touch with the universe (using your meditation reference). Your post brought this to mind: I see three levels of flow.
1. Pure flow with no parameters. This picture is similar to the theory of how even out of chaos comes structure. (see http://www.ldolphin.org/chaos.html or http://www.asklepia.org/crpjourneys/creativechaos.html) In Mazza’s (1995) interview with Graywolf, Graywolf states, “Chaos and creativity are really synonyms” (p. 1)
2. Flow with parameters. As you stated needing the right questions, frame, moments of silence, and cues.
3. No or limited flow. Is flow always the best method? For example, every Monday afternoon, we had grade level meetings. Everyone dreaded these meetings because they lasted so very long. All the (for example) 4th grade teachers would talk about the 4th grade curriculum, plan, approaches for subject levels, etc. The meetings lasted a long time because of the flow. I think there is a problem when everyone dreads a meeting rather than feels it is productive, helpful, or a valuable use of time.
So my question is: Is flow always good? Or are there better times to have flow and other times not? And if so, when?
Reference
Mazza, P. (1995). Creative chaos: How the mind uses chaos to make new connections. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.asklepia.org/crpjourneys/creativechaos.html
Realize there is a connection between the hippie era and computers.
To item #1: I can see the similarity of making order out of chaos, as with FLOW there is a synthesis of many things, and I think elements of serendipity.
To item #2. I did not impose parameters; this is a means to attain flow, rather than an imposed order. Of course, there are other ways to achieve flow. Athletes for example do this in different ways; visualization comes to mind as one aspect or way they might achieve flow.
To item #3: I think you are off the mark on this one (unless you meant 'the meetings lasted a long time because of LACK of flow.' Certainly what you have described is not the flow Csikszentmihalyi described as “effortless concentration and enjoyment,” rather those meetings you described are something based in time under what sounds to me like poor meeting management. Conversely, Csikszentmihalyi’s flow is described as a sense of timelessness. For your meetings perhaps you could suggest people check out Peter Scholtes’ Team Handbook, or The Team Memory Jogger, both printed through Joiner. These talk about basic meeting rules for example; always have an agenda, set a specific time, participants are allowed tell others if they are diverging from the topic at hand, and so on.
To your questions, I think that trying to achieve a purposeful and meaningful life is part of flow, and if one can apply it to as many aspects as possible it’s not bad. I don’t know that it is something that can be achieved as a group, but is certainly something to strive for individually.
Post a Comment