<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Can no longer resist jumping into this stream. John's observation that
this conversation method isn't "ours alone" is so right. My bilingual education
mentor, Alma Flor Ada, whose mentor was Paulo Freire, called her version
of the methodology <EM><STRONG>Creative Education.</STRONG> </EM>Its four
phases are <EM>Descriptive, Personal Interpretive, Critical and Creative.</EM> I
shared this material with Jo Nelson when she was writing <STRONG><EM>The Art of
Focused Conversation. </EM></STRONG>You can find more about it on page 24 of
that book.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matthew Fox's description of the fourfold path of Creation Spirituality
also takes one on a deepening journey: <EM>Via Positiva, Via Negativa, Via
Creativa and Via Transformativa.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm taking an online course, <EM>Integral Enlightenment, </EM>with Craig
Hamilton. Quite intense. The response of the thousand-plus participants around
the globe reminds me of how some of us responded to RS-1. The evolutionary
spirituality movement, with its call to be "pioneers on the point of evolution,"
has a familiar feeling tone. On my third reading of <STRONG><EM>Evolutionary
Enlightenment</EM></STRONG> by Andrew Cohen, I'm charting it, rather
laboriously, as I tend to do things. I think it brings Kaz's
<STRONG><EM>Spiritual Exercises </EM></STRONG>into the 21st century with a
rather practical application.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We're living in exciting times.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Blessings, dear colleagues,</DIV>
<DIV>Jann McGuire</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><STRONG>Illness as Initiation: </STRONG>An Unlikely Heroine's Journey
</EM>at <A
href="http://booklocker.com/books/5100.html">http://booklocker.com/books/5100.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://jannsjewels.blogspot.com">http://jannsjewels.blogspot.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/3/2012 8:22:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jlepps@pc.jaring.my writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><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 class=cite cite="" type="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
<stevehar11201@gmail.com><BR><B>To:</B> dialogue@wedgeblade.net
<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
title=http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297
href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297">http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297</A>
and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality <BR><A
title=http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/
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 title=mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net
href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</A><BR><A
title=http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
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>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<BR><A
title=http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net"
eudora="autourl">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</A>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Dialogue
mailing
list<BR>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<BR>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>