[Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Thu May 3 09:26:31 PDT 2012
Thanks, Randy:
Yes, I've also seen so-called ORID conversations
led in such a way that was stifling, mechanical,
insensitive, offensive, and generally
ineffective. A lot depends on the facilitator
who as Larry says, needs to be a good listener
and adapt the prepared questions to the group and
to the responses that come. Loosening up is a
good image. Fortunately ORID can be used loosely! :-)
Now about teaching: I don't think that aptly
describes the function of ORID, though it can
certainly be used as a teaching tool. We
certainly were not "teaching" with Guernica,
unless you mean something different by "teaching." Say more about that, please.
John
At 09:44 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Just for clarity, I think both ORID and Dialogue
>have valid functions to play, and I've seen the
>"art form" do the same as you describe,
>recently. I would make the distinction this way
>in a very over-simplified nutshell. ORID is
>conversation for the sake of teaching, led by a
>facilitator. Dialogue is conversation for the
>sake of learning where everyone is a teacher
>(translate "learning facilitator") and everyone
>a learner, and in some of the better ones I've
>participated in there was no facilitator present or needed.
>
>Nonetheless, I think we have to hear when some
>our colleagues when they say they find the ORID
>method "stifling." I believe we have to pay
>closer attention to when we use ORID, the
>workshop method and all the other of our
>tools. A while back I was with a participant in
>group trying to have a conversation for the sake
>learning, i.e. a dialogue. Someone pulled out a
>set of worksheets for us to fill out and the
>conversation went south from there. My point,
>good practical methods are only good when used
>in the appropriate setting. Not every setting
>is appropriate for ORID, or for dialogue for that matter.
>
>Again, I think we need to loosen up and not be
>such purists about the methods, ours or anyone
>elses. I'm probably preaching here to myself
>more than anyone else. The real key, as I said
>earlier, I don't believe we have to engineer outcomes.
>
>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: "jlepps at pc.jaring.my" <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
>To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:21 AM
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
>
>
>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 conversaation 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>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20120503/445b7f91/attachment.html>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list