[Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots

Thu May 3 08:50:32 PDT 2012

Well said John,  How deep also depends on the facilitator listening and 
adapting to the dialogue being pursued. Each is speaking into and 
creating the 4 levels and the "right" question is that which opens the 
door in this conversation, sometime that question is silence.

With respect, Larry

Lawrence Philbrook, Certified ToP Facilitator
Director, Institute of Cultural Affairs Taiwan
www.icatw.com Tel: 8862-2871-3150 Fax: 8862-2871-2870
Skype: icalarry

President ICA International/ Member Global Leadership Team
ICAI Office c/o ICA Canada, 655 Queen Street East
Toronto, ON.  M4M 1G4 Canada
www.ica-international.org

On 5/3/2012 11:21 PM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>
> 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 and Christa Tippitt 
>> 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
>> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto: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 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/de2c1ace/attachment.html>