[Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

Colleagues:

Since this stream has involved a bit of 
ORID-bashing (or de-sanctifying if you prefer) 
I’d like to say a little on its behalf.

O-R-I-D is simply the sequence in which the mind 
works. We perceive something, we react to it, we 
make sense of it, and we act appropriately. When 
a facilitator sequences conversation questions in 
that order, the dialogue flows naturally. The 
“depth” to which it goes depends on the subject 
and the group and, to some extent, the facilitator.

We recently presented this “method” to a group of 
judges in Singapore and invited them to try it 
with a scripted conversation at their 5 tables. 
The topic was “mentors.” The bottom dropped out; 
All five table conversations went deep, and awe 
filled the room. On reflection, the people 
gathered said the reason it worked was the 
sequence of the questions: they flowed naturally. 
Often that type conversation yields pious or 
abstract characteristics of mentors; this one was 
specific and based on experience of group 
members. As an outside observer during this 
conversation, I thought it became a spirit 
conversation under the category of meditation.

ORID, though belonging to the ToP suite of 
methods, is not “ours” alone. I attended a 
workshop at an IAF meeting in Germany in which 
the workshop leader (from the UK) presented a 
conversation method entitled 4-F (facts, 
feelings, findings, future). The leader had never heard of ORID.

When you see what passes for group conversations 
in most situations, having a sensible sequence 
that considers how the mind works is a major step 
forward. How “deep” we let it go depends on how 
well thought-through our questions are at the “I” 
and “D” levels – and what is our aim in 
conducting the conversation in the first place.

I look forward to your responses.

John Epps


At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I revere the "art form" methodology as much as 
>and appreciate its contribution over the years 
>to our "knowing."  However, in more recent years 
>I've arrived at a slightly evolved understanding 
>of knowing, having not so much to do with 
>clarity, awareness, consciousness and all of 
>that as we used to define those words.  For me 
>knowing now has more to do with "metanoia," what 
>the late Willis Harman called "mind change," 
>which I take to mean seeing the world 
>differently to the extent that one revises ones 
>stories of reality and as a result, lives life 
>differently.  The NT translation of "metanoia" 
>is "born again," and it can occur again and again in the course of a lifetime.
>
>To allow this to happen, I'm finding 
>conversational approaches like Bohmian 
>(physicist David Bohm) dialogue to be more 
>effective.  It is much less structured than 
>ORID, and therefore more open-ended and less 
>prescriptive about desired outcomes.  It is more 
>of an art than an art form.  The conclusions 
>arrived at by the individual participants are 
>less important than the communal bonds 
>established in the process, built not on the 
>basis of having arrived at a common mind (read 
>"consensus") regarding the subject at hand, but 
>on the foundation of discovered and acknowledged 
>interdependence and shared destiny, i.e., 
>community.  ORID, which still has a valuable 
>role to play in our work, depends more on the 
>discipline of the facilitator.  "Dialogue" seems 
>to me to depend more on the discipline of the 
>participants, with a skilled facilitator way over on the side.
>
>I think generally we ICA types need to loosen up 
>a bit, occasionally put away our work sheets 
>with prescribed outcomes, and acknowledge that 
>good things can happen, and are happening, 
>without our having to engineer them--in the 
>midst of which we can be participants with 
>meaningful contributions to make in our role as partners.
>
>Randy
>
>"Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the 
>course of being in the world; not to be 
>supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires."
>-Martin Buber (adapted)
>From: steve har <stevehar11201 at gmail.com>
>To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM
>Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
>
>
>Regarding Wayne's assertion: "The basic 
>phenomonology of the conversation method has not 
>changed. It has always been oriented toward the 
>ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it that way."
>
>With respect, I'm afraid I disagree with Wayne's 
>assertion that the basic conversation method has 
>changed. What has changed is the the emphasis of the conversation.
>
>In the Art Form method the conversation is "for" 
>being. It is ontological-existential and 
>ethical. In the ORID format [as articulated in 
>ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something 
>inside the context of a facilitator-client 
>agreement with a particular group of 
>participants. the conversation is "for" knowing i.e epistemological.
>
>Brian Stanfield's wonderful book of Focused 
>Conversations really highlights this shift to 
>the client-consultant workplace -which was a new 
>field of engagement in which to practice conversation making.
>
>Reading Brian's workplace conversation models is 
>like reading the music scores for Bach's 
>Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models 
>really did change the conversation focus in my 
>view. Of course there is other music to score 
>and play besides Bach's and there are other 
>conversations to model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology].
>
>  JWM's NRM monastic  distinctions are really 
> powerful:  Knowing | Being | Doing are actually 
> phenomenological distinctions for sorting out 
> the internal and social experiences that open 
> up in conversations and dialogues.
>
>A conversation "for Being" [ontology]  is an 
>entirely different score and it creates an 
>entirely different kind of conversational 
>"music" that has a much wider and deeper 
>expression - like the original Guernica Art From 
>conversation did or like the Tombstone 
>conversation did. In these conversations, you 
>get to declare something, you get to take a 
>stand and say what you value. The questions can 
>reveal personal character, what was lost, what 
>was gained, who you are being in this moment as 
>a human being. The conversation can be 
>profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It can 
>also contain varieties of ontological language 
>like mythological and religious expression.
>
>There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" 
>for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of
><http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297>http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 
>and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality
><http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/>http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/
>
>A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM 
>phenomenology is Largely unexplored in my 
>opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new 
>Other World in This World conversations in 1996 
>which I found in the 6th floor Archives last 
>summer. last summer we tried some over skype. 
>Bruce Hanson gave a wonderful talk using the 
>other world charts and Hoksai's pictures to 
>describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at 
>Hitachi Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. He 
>talked about himself as being a navigator on an otherworld trek.
>
>In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 
>disciplines is a clearheaded translation of the 
>old monastic categories. What remains is to see 
>clearly the Knowing Being and Doing 
>phenomenology in practice and in roles like the 
>role of a facilitator and the new roles of 
>pedagogue, story maker, coach, navigator
>
>So in sum, the point wasn't to jump on Wayne's 
>good thoughts. The point is to make some new 
>distinctions about conversations that freshen the wind and hear new music...
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Steve Harrington
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
><mailto:Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120503/4e3391f2/attachment.html>