<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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.<br>
<br>
With respect, Larry<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Lawrence Philbrook, Certified ToP Facilitator
Director, Institute of Cultural Affairs Taiwan
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.icatw.com">www.icatw.com</a> 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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ica-international.org">www.ica-international.org</a></pre>
<br>
On 5/3/2012 11:21 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120503152203.B2346FEE7@che.dreamhost.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Colleagues:<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I look forward to your responses.<br>
<br>
John Epps<br>
<br>
<br>
At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Steve,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Randy<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
-Martin Buber (adapted)<br>
<font size="2"><b>From:</b> steve har
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stevehar11201@gmail.com"><stevehar11201@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dialogue@wedgeblade.net">dialogue@wedgeblade.net</a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots
&
Shoots<br>
</font><br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
<font color="#222222" face="arial">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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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].<br>
<br>
</font> 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. <br>
<br>
<font color="#222222" face="arial">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.<br>
<br>
There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done
recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of <br>
</font><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297">
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297</a> and
Christa Tippitt
Contemplating Mortality <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/">http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/</a>
<br>
<font color="#222222" face="arial"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
Steve <br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Steve Harrington<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net"
eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net"
eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>