[Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots

Thu May 3 11:56:58 PDT 2012

Thank you, Jeanette!

Al Lingo
clingojr at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Stanfield <jstanfield at ica-associates.ca>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots

Dear colleagues, 

Happy 50th Anniversary!

I first experienced the art form method in the pre-schools in Fifth City.  It was a reflective process we used in all the
curriculum designs we created for babies, 2 year olds, 3,4,5 year olds and on up.  Many times the process took place through painting a picture, 
sharing a game, dramatizing being hurt on the playground etc.  Words were sometimes spoken .  Sometimes they weren't. Perhaps a
yes ritual at the end .  The focused conversation is one form of this reflective process.  I can go through this process alone on a beach or in 
the midst of a crowded bus.  It helps me experience life as my teacher.  And I notice that this reflective process goes on in others and needs to
be encouraged and given space and time to emerge.  

Ps  This is a pitch for chapter 10, Self-conscious reflection of the 2nd edition of The Courage to Lead which will be out shortly through iUniverse publishing. 

Thank you for all our adventures together, 

Jeanette Stanfield

On 2012-05-03, at 11:21 AM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:

Colleagues:

Since this stream has involved a bit of ORID-bashing (or de-sanctifyingif 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 perceivesomething, we react to it, we make sense of it, and we act appropriately.When a facilitator sequences conversation questions in that order, thedialogue flows naturally. The “depth” to which it goes depends on thesubject and the group and, to some extent, the facilitator. 

We recently presented this “method” to a group of judges in Singapore andinvited them to try it with a scripted conversation at their 5 tables.The topic was “mentors.” The bottom dropped out; All five tableconversations went deep, and awe filled the room. On reflection, thepeople gathered said the reason it worked was the sequence of thequestions: they flowed naturally. Often that type conversation yieldspious or abstract characteristics of mentors; this one was specific andbased on experience of group members. As an outside observer during thisconversation, I thought it became a spirit conversation under thecategory 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 workshopleader (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 majorstep forward. How “deep” we let it go depends on how well thought-throughour questions are at the “I” and “D” levels – and what is our aim inconducting 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 appreciateits contribution over the years to our "knowing." However, in more recent years I've arrived at a slightly evolvedunderstanding of knowing, having not so much to do with clarity,awareness, consciousness and all of that as we used to define thosewords.  For me knowing now has more to do with "metanoia,"what the late Willis Harman called "mind change," which I taketo mean seeing the world differently to the extent that one revises onesstories of reality and as a result, lives life differently.  The NTtranslation of "metanoia" is "born again," and it canoccur again and again in the course of a lifetime.

To allow this to happen, I'm finding conversational approaches likeBohmian (physicist David Bohm) dialogue to be more effective.  It ismuch less structured than ORID, and therefore more open-ended and lessprescriptive about desired outcomes.  It is more of an art than anart form.  The conclusions arrived at by the individual participantsare 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 thefoundation of discovered and acknowledged interdependence and shareddestiny, i.e., community.  ORID, which still has a valuable role toplay in our work, depends more on the discipline of thefacilitator.  "Dialogue" seems to me to depend more on thediscipline of the participants, with a skilled facilitator way over onthe side.

I think generally we ICA types need to loosen up a bit, occasionally putaway our work sheets with prescribed outcomes, and acknowledge that goodthings can happen, and are happening, without our having to engineerthem--in the midst of which we can be participants with meaningfulcontributions to make in our role as partners.  

Randy

"Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being inthe world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as itdesires."
-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 theconversation method has not changed. It has always been oriented towardthe ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it thatway."

With respect, I'm afraid I disagreewith 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 isontological-existential and ethical. In the ORID format [as articulatedin ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something inside the context ofa 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 reallyhighlights this shift to the client-consultant workplace -which was a newfield of engagement in which to practice conversation making. 

Reading Brian's workplace conversation models is like reading the musicscores for Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models reallydid change the conversation focus in my view. Of course there is othermusic to score and play besides Bach's and there are other conversationsto model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology].

 JWM's NRM monastic  distinctions are reallypowerful:  Knowing | Being | Doing are actually phenomenologicaldistinctions for sorting out the internal and social experiences thatopen up in conversations and dialogues. 

A conversation "for Being"[ontology]  is an entirely different score and it creates anentirely different kind of conversational "music" that has amuch wider and deeper expression - like the original Guernica Art Fromconversation did or like the Tombstone conversation did. In theseconversations, you get to declare something, you get to take a stand andsay what you value. The questions can reveal personal character, what waslost, what was gained, who you are being in this moment as a human being.The conversation can be profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It canalso contain varieties of ontological language like mythological andreligious expression.

There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being donerecently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of 
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa TippittContemplating Mortality 
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/

A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM phenomenology is Largelyunexplored in my opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new OtherWorld in This World conversations in 1996 which I found in the 6th floorArchives last summer. last summer we tried some over skype. Bruce Hansongave a wonderful talk using the other world charts and Hoksai's picturesto describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at Hitachi Company on theoutskirts of Tokyo. He talked about himself as being a navigator on anotherworld trek.

In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 disciplines is a clearheadedtranslation of the old monastic categories. What remains is to seeclearly the Knowing Being and Doing phenomenology in practice and inroles 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 pointis to make some new distinctions about conversations that freshen thewind and hear new music...

Steve 

-- 
Steve Harrington

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20120503/46d30ef2/attachment.html>