May 2012 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

Re: [Dialogue] Death of Robert Shropshire
by George Holcombe 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

Conna Wilkerson told me that Robert died Tuesday night at his mother's home in Chicago. A service will be held for him on Saturday. Wanda and I will never forget Robert. When he arrived at Mowanjum, he was the star of the show, everyone thought he was the greatest. Years later Robert and I had a great time playing music at the summer programs. I'm sure others of us have memories of Robert, too. George Holcombe 14900 Yellowleaf Tr. Austin, TX 78728 Mobile 512/252-2756 geowanda1(a)me.com Hope appeareth, but it is not your Hope—you do not have anything to do with it. It just appeareth. It comes as a stranger, as an alien—it just appeareth! You do not even know why you hope. How in the world could you hope when there is absolutely nothing to justify any hope? ~Joseph W. Mathews

4 3

Address for the Shropshire children and family
by Lynda Cock 31 May '12

31 May '12

Conna sent me this: Lynda, Thank you for your note. His mother is Evelyn Shropshire at 6658 S. Kimbark, Chicago, IL. His children are Evelyn and Gregory Shropshire and both live here in Oklahoma - close to me, so consequently, I have never memorized their addresses. However you can send to them c/o me at 9932 E. Wilshire Blvd, Spencer, OK 73084 and I can make sure they receive anything that comes. -Conna Note that Conna's address is different from the one in the Directory, so thought I'd forward this on. Also add new preferred e-mail: conna.wilkinson(a)gmail.com With care and sympathy for this family, we celebrate the life of one who lived and journeyed with us for many years, Lynda Cock

1 0

5/31/12, Spong: Remembering My Mentors Part III: Janet Robinson, Bible Teacher
by Ellie Stock 31 May '12

31 May '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Remembering My Mentors Part III: Janet Robinson, Bible Teacher Her name was Janet Robinson and I met her shortly after my 12th birthday. She was a member of my church and active as a Sunday school teacher. She was an unmarried lady in her late forties or early fifties. She was a stocky, heavy-set woman, but no one would have referred to her as over weight. She wore very basic clothes, usually suits that were either brown or navy blue. Her shoes had heels, but they were square and low, laced-up oxfords more often than not. Her brown hair was folded into a bun at the back of her head. She never used lipstick or make-up of any sort, believing those things to be something against which the Bible warned. She thought being a muted woman was being a proper woman. She was a very enthusiastic, even an emotional Christian, who was devoted to Jesus whom she called “My Lord” and she referred to him as “precious.” It almost seemed to me that she was in love with Jesus. She would not have used those words, they were too romantic, but he was the focus and the primary love of her life. I do not recall anything other than her presence in Sunday school since she was never my teacher, but from time to time she did speak in church and it was there that she revealed both her devotion and the intensity of her faith. She lived with her sister, Sarah, who was also a single lady, but Sarah did not exhale religious fervor in quite the same way. “Miss Janet,” as we called her, frequently led Bible classes in other churches beside my own. She was highly regarded in evangelical circles and was, in many ways, far more comfortable in the local Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches than she was in her own Episcopal church. She was not as much into classical liturgy as she was into “experiencing Jesus as my personal Savior.” Her face had that kind of radiant glow, the well-scrubbed look of one who possessed an unmade-up freshness. She was a warm person. Her penetrating eyes set off both her high forehead and her tight, swept back hairstyle. In the 1940’s in the South, the public schools were in many ways the parochial schools of evangelical Christian Protestantism. There were few Roman Catholics in those days in the South, still fewer Jews and almost no admitted atheists or agnostics. Generally, everyone was a member of some church and the religious debates in that region were over such internal issues of whether infant baptism or adult baptism was proper, whether wine or grape juice should be used at Holy Communion and whether a personal and sometimes intense conversion experience was essential to the Christian life as opposed to just growing up into a Christian conviction. The sins against which most clergy railed from their pulpits were alcohol, card playing, divorce and profanity. There was not much attention paid to smoking as a sin since North Carolina was in tobacco-growing country and no one wanted to attack the crop that was the basis of the economy. Most of the churches and cultural institutions were by law segregated. This was the time of Jim Crow in the South, of public water fountains marked “white” and “colored” and where the separation of the races was not only the norm, but was believed to have been instituted by God and ordered by the Bible. Abortion was not only illegal, but criminalized, which meant that an underground abortion industry thrived, not always safely. “Florence Crittenden” homes for unwed mothers were well known and great shame was attached to those who went there and to their families. Alcohol was illegal in public, but a thriving bootlegger business provided “spirits” to those who could pay. The Charlotte Council of Churches decided that the Bible ought to be taught in public schools and petitioned the school board to accomplish this. Of course, the Council of Churches assumed that it would be an evangelical Protestant fundamentalist approach to the Bible that was taught since most people knew no other. The school board accepted this request in an interesting compromise between church and state. The Bible teacher was to be hired and paid by the Charlotte Council of Churches. The public school officials, however, would have to approve the choice and to certify that this teacher was properly trained and accredited. Full faculty status with all its privileges was then bestowed on this teacher. Full credit toward graduation was given to these classes on the Bible. All of that was quite legal in the late 1940’s in North Carolina. The person hired to fill this position at Central High School in Charlotte was Janet Robinson and it was in this position that I experienced her as clearly as I did. I was 17 by this time. Two courses on the Bible were offered as electives in my high school. I took both courses from Janet, one in my junior year and the other in my senior year. This meant that for two years in High School I was in Janet’s class for one hour a day, five days a week. This was more time than I spent with any other teacher. I began to absorb from her the content of the Bible in an enormously thorough and systematic, if fundamentalist, way. She captured the drama, the excitement and the attached moral lessons in every story. The first year was mostly on the Old Testament and her style was to teach biographically. I was gripped daily by the narratives of such people as Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Lot, Isaac and Rebekah and Joseph and his brothers. I cringed at such details as the sacrifice of Isaac ordered by God and then miraculously stopped when the voice of God intervened to tell Abraham that God had only ordered this sacrifice to test his faith. I don’t recall it being mentioned that Abraham had an older son named Ishmael by Hagar, Sarah’s handmaiden, that is her slave, and that both Hagar and Ishmael were banished from the tribe because of Sarah’s jealousy. “Miss Janet” also had trouble teaching things in the Bible of which she disapproved, like multiple marriages or the incest between Tamar and her father-in-law Judah, to say nothing of the adulterous relationship of David and Bathsheba that produced King Solomon. Some severe whitewashing of these texts took place under her tutelage. I was, however, mesmerized by accounts of Esau selling his birthright, Moses at the burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, Israel’s adventures in the wilderness; the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, and those marvelous vignettes in the book of Judges about Ehud, Gideon and Deborah. We moved on through Elijah and Elisha, Samuel, Saul and David. Under her powerful story telling ability, these people rose to hero status until I thought of them as personal friends. In that class, we were encouraged to compose psalms, to memorize certain proverbs and certain texts like John 3:16, but books like Leviticus and the Major Prophets (Isaiah through Daniel) received short shrift except for Daniel. Who among us can resist stories like Daniel in the lion’s den or the characters known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and their adventures in the fiery furnace? I do not recall that we learned about any of the Minor Prophets (Hosea through Malachi) with the exception of Jonah and the whale. A memorable story was never ignored. Year two, under “Miss Janet,” was on the New Testament. Jesus was the star – from his birth, which had literal stars and angels attached, to his crucifixion, which had literal thieves on each side of the savior and where he spoke the seven literal words from the cross. These accounts were related in dramatic and emotional terms. We learned the popular parables, memorized the beatitudes and marveled at the miracle stories, especially the one about Lazarus, who was raised back to life after being, not only dead for four days, but also buried in his tomb. When we came to Paul, it was through the book of Acts not the epistles that we engaged him. I do not remember ever reading an epistle. The stories in Acts were filled with such Pauline adventures as shipwreck, being bitten by a snake and preaching so long into the night that a lad named Eutychus, who was sitting in the rafters, went to sleep and fell to the floor. Then there were Paul’s trials before Felix and Festus and his final journey to Rome all of which were filled in with excitement and tension. Much of my love of the Bible and certainly some of my teaching style was born at the feet of this woman. She knew nothing of critical scholarship or of how the Bible was actually formed, but her love for the Bible, her devotion to Jesus, remained to be forever reflected in my life. My habit of daily Bible reading and my love for this book are her gifts to me. I will be forever in her debt. Janet died about ten years ago in Charlotte, but she lives on in every book I have written and I acknowledge her with gratitude. I suspect that she would be surprised to know this because most of her disciples became Baptists or fundamentalist preachers and some of them are quite hesitant to include me among the “The Elect of God!” As I began to think back on my life and to identify those who were my mentors and teachers, I discovered that the great majority of them were white males. That reflects the era in which I was raised. Women and people of color were not frequently in positions to mentor the boy, adolescent and young man that I was. Even my career as a priest and bishop was spent in an overwhelmingly white, male-dominated church. That limited reality that was simply my primary experience. That fact does not diminish those who were my mentors, but it does help me to understand the narrowness of my life’s preparation. Janet Robinson was a major exception to this rule and because of that I am even more appreciative of her. I am also pleased that my children and my grandchildren will not be as limited as I was. The world is changing and doors are opening in ways never known before. I rejoice that among my great mentors was Janet Robinson, and I am especially pleased to acknowledge that the gifts she gave to me were identified with the woman she was. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Bishop Spong's Summer Session at the Pacific School of Religion! Re-Claiming the Bible in a Post-Christian World Instructor: John Shelby Spong Dates and Times: One week: July 16-20, 9am - 1pm Description: Can the Bible, written 2000-3000 years ago, speak in any meaningful way to the 21st century? If it cannot, then is Christianity at an end? If it can, will Christianity look anything like what we have known in the past? Since creeds and doctrines are all constructed on the basis of what was believed to be "Biblical Truth," can any of the current formularies stand? Since liturgy is based on biblical definitions of sin, salvation and God, none of which make much sense to 21st century people, can Christianity tolerate the revolution that it faces? This class will be taught by one who has been a priest and bishop for 56 years with one foot in the institutional church and the other in the academic world of new insights. It is specifically designed for clergy and questing lay people. Course Credits & Cost: 1.5 credits - $990; audit - $495; 2.0 CEUs - $350 Course Number: BS-2117 (credit); BS-0003 (CEUs) Required Text: John Shelby Spong, Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World, 2011 HarperCollins, San Francisco. Purchase here. Syllabus: Re-Claiming the Bible in a Post-Christian World Register Question & Answer Fran from Rappahannock, Virginia, writes: Question: When did Jesus become a Catholic? Answer: Dear Fran, Jesus never became a Christian much less a Catholic! You have either been listening to too much church propaganda or you fail to embrace the dimensions of history that mark first the life of Jesus, and second the dimensions of history that mark the institution of the church. Some years ago at an airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, a young Palestinian girl, perhaps eight or nine years old, saw my pectoral cross that has the Hebrew letters for the name of God, YHWH, etched into the center of the cross. Recognizing these as Jewish writing, she asked: Why do you have Jewish writing on your cross?” I responded that it is to remind myself and others that Jesus was a Jew. “A Jew,” she said, “I thought Jesus was a Catholic.” Let me say first that if one is able to transcend the literalness that surrounds most religious claims, there is a germ of truth in the assertion “that Jesus was a Catholic.” There is only this germ of truth in that assertion. If we ever come to understand Jesus properly I believe that we will discover that to the Jews, Jesus will be a Jew, to the Christians, Jesus will be a Christian, to the Catholics Jesus will be a Catholic and to the Protestants Jesus will a Protestant. Beyond those religious limits I also think that we can say that we can also state that if Jesus is properly understood to the Europeans, Jesus will be a European, to the Asians, Jesus will be an Asian and to the Africans Jesus will be an African. All of those are, however, faith statements, not historical definitions. The Christian Church was formed well after the death of Jesus, indeed some 50 to 60 years afterward. At the beginning of their life and history, the followers of Jesus continued to be what they had always been, members of the synagogues. Christianity began as a movement within the synagogue. They called themselves not “Christians” but “The Followers of the Way.” Jesus certainly did not found the church, despite the ecclesiastical propaganda of the ages. Christianity in its early centuries was not centrally organized, so it is hard to say when the Catholic Church, as we now know it, actually came into being. The Bishop of Rome did not establish his authority over Western Europe until the fourth century and he never really established his authority over Eastern Europe, which was then and is now the home of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus was a Jew. But his followers convinced that they had experienced the presence of God in him, in time created the Christian Church. Whether Jesus ever thought of himself as the founder of a new religion is today, at least in scholarly circles, almost universally denied. Thanks for your question. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Two Recommendations from Bishop Spong: My good friend and colleague, Gretta Vosper, a United Church of Canada minister in Toronto has just published a book on prayer that I found to be a probing, disturbing, magnificent treatment of this complex subject. The Book is entitled: Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. It is available from Harper/Collins, Toronto or through any online or local bookstore. I have also just learned that Ian Lawton, another brilliant young pastor and good friend serving a Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan is offering an online course entitled A History of God. Ian is one of the most creative thinkers in the post-Christian world. Anyone interested in this course can get details by going to http://www.entheos.com/academy/courses/a-history-of-God Read what Bishop Spong has to say about A Joyful Path Progressive Christian Spiritual Curriculum for Young Hearts and Minds: "The great need in the Christian church is for a Sunday school curriculum for children that does not equate faith with having a pre-modern mind. The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced just that. Teachers can now teach children in Sunday school without crossing their fingers. I endorse it wholeheartedly." Subscribers, please remember that your subscription is automatically renewed. You can unsubscribe at any time. Simply login to access your profile page and cancel your account. Login to be able to comment directly on the website. Join in the discussion! Interested in staying informed of the latest updates to ProgressiveChristianity.org? Click here to sign up for our free monthly e-Bulletin, which has articles, reviews, books, events, and more. Look for Bishop Spong on Facebook and LIKE the Facebook page for ProgressiveChristianity.org! You can also follow Bishop Spong on Twitter. Thank you for taking this journey with us! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. forward to a friend Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW #148 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Add us to your address book

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Grand Design & Ontology
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 28 May '12

28 May '12

Thanks David. If you'd like a copy of the whole thing -- very much a rough draft, and not quite complete -- just let me know. John At 09:04 PM 5/26/2012, you wrote: >John, >david scott here > >Your work is already a success. Anyone who writes about "ontology" >with a sense of humour has already won the day. > >Keep it coming. > >david > >On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my ><jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> wrote: > > Colleagues. > > > > Our discussion is very enlightening and fruitful. Thanks for all the > > participation and insights that keep on coming. Right now we seem to be > > ruminating about what does reality consist of, and that's an arena on which > > I've been brooding for awhile. Below is the Summary and Introduction to a > > paper that's been in the works for a couple of years. Your insights and > > interest (or lack of it) would be most welcome. If anyone is interested in > > the whole thing as it now exists, let me know and I'll send it. It's > > currently about 36 pages. The list serve does not allow attachments, so be > > sure to send your email. > > > > Draft 6 July 08 May. 12 > > > > DIMENSIONS OF ONTOLOGY > > John Epps > > > > Executive Summary > > > > Human authenticity consists of being in a right relationship with reality. > > Reality consists of eight interrelated dimensions: Space, Time, Physical > > Matter, Technology, Socio-culture, Identity, Energy, and Meaning. They seem > > to occur in closely-related pairs: Space and Socio-culture; Time and > > Identity; Technology and Energy; Physical Matter and Meaning. Each of these > > eight dimensions is universal in scope. Each poses its own issues in terms > > of attaining a right relationship to it. > Different dimensions are emphasized > > at different times, and the present seems to be a time of emphasis on space > > and socio-culture dimensions. > > > > Introduction > > > > Whenever we're wrongly related to reality, we are in a situation of > > self-destruction. In religious terms, it is a condition of un-faith or sin. > > Restoring faith means authentically re-connecting with reality. But > > conceptions of what constitutes reality vary considerably, and change from > > time to time. What I'd like to do is first, to attempt a quick summation of > > what constitutes reality in the contemporary mind-set, then second, to > > indicate the issues we have in relating to > it, and finally, to indicate ways > > in which authentic relations can be > re-established or at least communicated. > > The aim of the paper is to provide the basis for addressing the crises of > > faith that people experience today and offer the possibilities of > > encountering life as meaningful. > > > > The matter of clarifying what is real, or what reality consists of, is an > > on-going effort. One of the latest from the point of view of science is > > super-string theory which posits that the ultimate entity of which > > everything consists is not a tiny particle (even a point-particle), but > > rather is vibrating energy strings. Its a > fascinating theory well-explained > > in the book The Elegant Universe by Brian Green[1]. In the process of > > describing this theory, its justifications, and implications, Green > > indicates that reality has 11 dimensions, not simply the three spatial and > > one temporal that we are familiar with. > > > > I do not intend to further elaborate on this theory or even attempt to > > understand it, but rather Id like to use the notion of multiple dimensions > > as a metaphor to attempt to grasp the common understanding of reality's > > components and the way that "spirit problems" > consist of unhealthy relations > > to reality. > > > > Id like to begin by providing a sort of roadmap of reality, i.e., an > > indication of the multiple dimensions of reality that we assume in our > > normal operation. This is sort of a > pop-ontology that attempts to get at the > > assumptions out of which we live. It's an > attempt to state the "common sense > > of science" that is active these days. Once > people thought reality consisted > > of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Everything else consisted of > > some combination of the four. That view now > seems at best, "pre-scientific." > > Later, people lived in a 3-story universe (and that was common sense, not > > religion, though religion used it to convey its particular insights); today > > we live in a multi-dimensional universe that must become the mode through > > which religious insights can be communicated, understood, and embodied.[2] > > > > Were all familiar with the diagram of an atom, that represents the > > relationships of its various components. Id like to use it as a graphic > > portraying the relationships among the various dimensions that compose > > reality. Each of the orbits in the diagram affects all the others, though > > each has its own integrity. That is an important factor to note in our > > assumptions about reality. Now Id like to describe the dimensions that we > > assume as constituents of reality. > > > > > > [1] Brian Green, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and > > the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New York: Random House, 2003) > > > > [2] Some time after the 3-story universe > collapsed, a more "scientific" view > > was developed in which reality was composed of the basic elements contained > > in the Periodic Table. Still later atoms and the sub-atomic particles > > surfaced. The point is that notions of what > constitutes reality change. This > > paper attempts to mark the current milestone in that change process. > > > > > > I. DIMENSIONS AND ISSUES (Below is an outline of section one) > > > > A. SPACE > > "And remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Earl Mac Rauch > > > > B. TIME > > "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." Groucho Marx > > "Time is that quality of nature which keeps events from happening all at > > once. Lately it doesn't seem to be working." Anonymous > > > > C. PHYSICAL MATTER > > "Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major > > categories: those that don't work, those that > break down, and those that get > > lost." Russell Baker > > > > D. TECHNOLOGY > > "For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of > > life, please press three." Alice Kahn > > > > E. SOCIO-CULTURE > > "It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming > > up it." Henry Allen > > > > F. IDENTITY > > "To be idle requires a strong sense of personal identity." Robert Louis > > Stevenson > > > > G. ENERGY > > "I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues." Duke > > Ellington > > > > H. MEANING > > "How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and > > shirt size?" Woody Allen > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dialogue mailing list > > Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > > > > > >-- >Margaret and David Scott >Flathead Valley College >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Grand Design & Ontology
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 28 May '12

28 May '12

Colleagues. Our discussion is very enlightening and fruitful. Thanks for all the participation and insights that keep on coming. Right now we seem to be ruminating about what does reality consist of, and that's an arena on which I've been brooding for awhile. Below is the Summary and Introduction to a paper that's been in the works for a couple of years. Your insights and interest (or lack of it) would be most welcome. If anyone is interested in the whole thing as it now exists, let me know and I'll send it. It's currently about 36 pages. The list serve does not allow attachments, so be sure to send your email. Draft 6 July 08 May. 12 DIMENSIONS OF ONTOLOGY John Epps Executive Summary Human authenticity consists of being in a right relationship with reality. Reality consists of eight interrelated dimensions: Space, Time, Physical Matter, Technology, Socio-culture, Identity, Energy, and Meaning. They seem to occur in closely-related pairs: Space and Socio-culture; Time and Identity; Technology and Energy; Physical Matter and Meaning. Each of these eight dimensions is universal in scope. Each poses its own issues in terms of attaining a right relationship to it. Different dimensions are emphasized at different times, and the present seems to be a time of emphasis on space and socio-culture dimensions. Introduction Whenever we're wrongly related to reality, we are in a situation of self-destruction. In religious terms, it is a condition of un-faith or sin. Restoring faith means authentically re-connecting with reality. But conceptions of what constitutes reality vary considerably, and change from time to time. What I'd like to do is first, to attempt a quick summation of what constitutes reality in the contemporary mind-set, then second, to indicate the issues we have in relating to it, and finally, to indicate ways in which authentic relations can be re-established or at least communicated. The aim of the paper is to provide the basis for addressing the crises of faith that people experience today and offer the possibilities of encountering life as meaningful. The matter of clarifying what is real, or what reality consists of, is an on-going effort. One of the latest from the point of view of science is super-string theory which posits that the ultimate entity of which everything consists is not a tiny particle (even a point-particle), but rather is vibrating energy strings. Its a fascinating theory well-explained in the book The Elegant Universe by Brian Green[1]. In the process of describing this theory, its justifications, and implications, Green indicates that reality has 11 dimensions, not simply the three spatial and one temporal that we are familiar with. I do not intend to further elaborate on this theory or even attempt to understand it, but rather Id like to use the notion of multiple dimensions as a metaphor to attempt to grasp the common understanding of reality's components and the way that "spirit problems" consist of unhealthy relations to reality. Id like to begin by providing a sort of roadmap of reality, i.e., an indication of the multiple dimensions of reality that we assume in our normal operation. This is sort of a pop-ontology that attempts to get at the assumptions out of which we live. It's an attempt to state the "common sense of science" that is active these days. Once people thought reality consisted of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Everything else consisted of some combination of the four. That view now seems at best, "pre-scientific." Later, people lived in a 3-story universe (and that was common sense, not religion, though religion used it to convey its particular insights); today we live in a multi-dimensional universe that must become the mode through which religious insights can be communicated, understood, and embodied.[2] Were all familiar with the diagram of an atom, that represents the relationships of its various components. Id like to use it as a graphic portraying the relationships among the various dimensions that compose reality. Each of the orbits in the diagram affects all the others, though each has its own integrity. That is an important factor to note in our assumptions about reality. Now Id like to describe the dimensions that we assume as constituents of reality. [1] Brian Green, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New York: Random House, 2003) [2] Some time after the 3-story universe collapsed, a more "scientific" view was developed in which reality was composed of the basic elements contained in the Periodic Table. Still later atoms and the sub-atomic particles surfaced. The point is that notions of what constitutes reality change. This paper attempts to mark the current milestone in that change process. I. DIMENSIONS AND ISSUES (Below is an outline of section one) A. SPACE "<http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/757.html>And remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Earl Mac Rauch B. TIME "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." Groucho Marx "<http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/564.html>Time is that quality of nature which keeps events from happening all at once. Lately it doesn't seem to be working." <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Anonymous/>Anonymous C. PHYSICAL MATTER "Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categories: those that don't work, those that break down, and those that get lost." Russell Baker D. TECHNOLOGY "For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three." Alice Kahn E. SOCIO-CULTURE "It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." Henry Allen F. IDENTITY "To be idle requires a strong sense of personal identity." Robert Louis Stevenson G. ENERGY "I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues." Duke Ellington H. MEANING "How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and shirt size?" Woody Allen

6 5

Re: [Dialogue] Grand Design & Ontology
by PSchrijnen＠aol.com 28 May '12

28 May '12

In a message dated 28/05/2012 16:00:23 GMT Daylight Time, wnelson(a)ica-associates.ca writes: I'll become a silent observe from now on. Now there is a tragedy.... Paul

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] re Grand Design and Ontology
by Pat Druckenmiller 27 May '12

27 May '12

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone David Walters <walters(a)alaweb.com> wrote: >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(a)ica-associates.ca wrote: > >From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson(a)ica-associates.ca> >To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

2 1

Apology to Wayne Nelson from Steve Harrington
by steve har 27 May '12

27 May '12

Wayne, Perhaps you are speaking to me, Wayne with your complaint, [paraphrasing]: please stop putting your words in my mouth and twisting up the things I say. I really have zero commitment to -in brevity - to putting and twisting your words - nor do I intend to be disrespectful to you personally in any way whatsoever. Without conditions whatsoever I apologize to you personally and directly. I want you to know I am responsible for my listening and speaking and the messes I create like this one when I fail to get it right. In the future should I ever listen or speak stupidly to you, please call me to task and I will do my best to make amends on the spot. My intention is actually to listen to your words with respect and curiosity for example -your views on high context vs low context cultures: - "...high context cultures...". - " 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." And I am left wondering [for my self] who was the "we" that was confused again, wondering what that might have to do with now and the future 50 ears of ICA? My intention is to honor your views; i expect to be able to hold views different from yours and to express them freely: for example I see a distinction between Art-Form Conversations and ORID conversations which you may not see or may not value the same way I do. Here is a thought of mine which you are free to engage, disagree with, ignore as you choose. I see some future benefit of having a richer set of distinctions regarding conversations, disciplines, practices and leadership roles including - the "ask orientation" of a facilitator, - the "get it into action orientation" of a teacher/trainer - the "share orientation" of a digital story-teller, - the "being-with orientation" of a mentor or a coach or a guide, - the "get it done well orientation" of a project leader and a coach A reconsideration of JWM's Knowing, Being & Doing phenomenology could produce a much richer set of social roles, practices conversations and some new patterns of leadership. At the moment I'm admiring Kaze Gadway's [was Kaye Hayes] story making on her blog and in video, and her engagement with indian kids on the reservation. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I admire her candor, equanimity and her willingness to pay something forward to a new generation 1on1 when she guides and mentors kids. Makes me think of being a grandfather for a new grand daughter. I apologize one more time for being disrespectful to you. I am responsible for my words and for doing my best to clean up my own messes. I choose to honor your intentions and words, even with different view points. I apologize for my poor texting. I ask you to accept my apology. I ask you to tell me the next dumb thing I write that offends you. Steve

2 1

Re: [Dialogue] re Grand Design and Ontology
by David Walters 27 May '12

27 May '12

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(a)ica-associates.ca wrote: From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson(a)ica-associates.ca> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Judith Update May 27th
by Jayandem2＠aol.com 27 May '12

27 May '12

Dear friends and colleagues: First off, let me thank you for all the wonderful emails and cards you have sent since hearing of Judith's fall and subsequent hospitalization. I can't stress more strongly how much they have meant to her and to me. to hear from so many folks from all eras of our life. I wish I could have a more encouraging note to send, but Judith is back in the hospital as of last Wednesday. She had been in Surrey Place Rehab Center since April 17th. they attempted to do as much occupational and physical therapy as possible, but she continued to have severe pains in the left leg that was broken just below the top of the femur. That really limited what they could accomplish, and she didn't make much progress. A bunch of other complications set in, particularly a urine infection, bad dehydration and undernourishment due to her total lack of appetite. Anyway, she was readmitted to the hospital for more medical care than was possible at the rehab facility. She is quite disabled, and certainly needs all the good vibes and prayers that can come her way. Meg and I are doing well, and we have wonderful caregivers that take good care of both of us, (even though we hire them to only take care of Meg.) As I have mentioned previously, our wonderful church community also cares so well for us. I will keep you updated. Grace, Peace, and Love, Mike

1 0