[Dialogue] re Grand Design and Ontology

Sun May 27 16:21:41 PDT 2012

I fell asleep after reading Wayne's latest discourse. Then I had a dream where Wayne had died and gone to hell. After he had been there a few months he summoned to Satan's office. I hear that you where some kind of fancy pant s facilitator. That's correct, Wayne replied. Well..... Satan mused and asked Can up help me with all these Americans that have been showing down here lately. What the problem with them? Wayne inquired. They all seem to be disaffected republicans, Satan said. That is certainly a major contradiction, Wayne said. Satan responded, What would you suggest. Wayne thought a bit and said, I could lead an O-R-I-D? Satan replied, What would your topic be? Wayne immediately answered, ICEWATER!

Wayne. I don't know if this sufficiently grounds this thread for you ontologically or not, but this is the best I can do. 

-David Walters

--- wnelson at ica-associates.ca wrote:

From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson at ica-associates.ca>
To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] re Grand Design and Ontology
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 12:42:52 -0400

OK, I'll say it. 

The emperor has no clothes on!

(There are earthier and profane ways to convey this sentiment and I am pretty fluent in those linguistic forms should the necessity arise.)

I have never said anything in this forum about knowing and the modalities of knowledge. 

My only brief interest in epistimology (my first and likely only use of that word in this forum are in this paragraph) came when I encountered groups who seem to process ideas and move to decision making in unique ways. I was kind of flummoxed; as many of us have been, in encountering the perplexing and intriguing variations in the ways humanness configures itself on the planet. 

I determined that the uniquenesses I encountered were more related to culturally based operating patterns of relationship in high context cultures and adaptations to the detrimental impact of colonialization than they were to actual ways of knowing things. The differences were, substantially, sociological and led to variations in practice, but not in foundational methodology. 

I never mentioned all that on this forum because there were no electronic forums at the time and I had never even touched a computer when all that happened. I haven't thought about epistimology in any depth for donkey's years. It is, in the context we're discussing, about beings - our "throwness" or our "showed-up-ness, but it is not about being. 

I am interested in the nature of being - being profoundly human. My dictionaries call that ontology. 

"Job # 1" is enabling human authenticity. So is job # 2, 3, 4 and all the rest of them. 

I have never seen the ways we have used our basic phenomonological approach as a matter of contrasting or materially different methodologies. 

I have never said that and I do not believe it to be true.

If a conversation does not enable people to take an authentic relation to their given situation, it is neither a proper O-R-I-D conversation not a proper art form conversation. 

The only meaningful difference between an O-R-I-D conversation and an artform conversation is the name and only the name. We're using the term "Focused Conversation" these days. It's the same dude with different clothes on. You calling me George or Sue won't change who I am. 

We kind of confused ourselves in the 80's in our efforts to make this phenomonal phenomonological methodology more accessible and useful in a wider range of applications. Different people, different contexts, different cares and concerns, different histories led us to different terminology and differences in application. 

If the methodology is different, something different is happening that is not either aspect of that false dichotomy. The tragedy is not being aware of it. Those who were hoodwinked into thinking we created something substantially different or even intended to do so are living a very strangely disconnected world. 

The substance of the difference is in the group involved, their unique context and concerns and what will enable that specific group to make common sense, form a common will and assume an authentic relationship to their situation. 

Please stop putting your words in my mouth and twisting up the things I say 

It is deeply irritating to be disrespected in this way. 

This practice is edging closer to abuse than healthy provocation of genuine dialogue.

Wayne

just about one click away from asking to be removed from this community

- - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson
wnelson at ica-associates.ca
O - 416-691-2316
M - 647-229-6910

On 2012-05-27, at 9:41 AM, steve har wrote:

> Applause and admiration to really ANYONE who provokes thought or humor
> around the notion of "Grand Design & Ontology.
> 
> More please John Epps and David Scott!
> 
> More pushy rejoinders please from Wayne Nelson and Facilitators and :
> maybe with a provocative proposition like "There is no Ontology just
> Epistemology; or no Art Form Conversation just ORID Procedures".
> 
> More San Antonio style model building from Wiegel:
> http://2012gatheringminds.pbworks.com/
> 
> More strange questions like the one from my Zen teacher Dosho Port's
> blog this morning: “Although you understand that the nature of the
> wind is permanent,” Mayu replied, “you do not understand the meaning
> of its reaching everywhere.”
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildfoxzen/2012/05/what-is-zen-he-asked.html
> 
> What about you? What's provocative for the future for you?
> 
> --
> 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