Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
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." 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. 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. 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. 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]. 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. 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. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ 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. 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 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... Steve -- Steve Harrington
Steve, 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. 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. 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. Randy "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." -Martin Buber (adapted) ________________________________ From: steve har <stevehar11201@gmail.com> To: dialogue@wedgeblade.net Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots 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." 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. 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. 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. 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]. 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. 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. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ 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. 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 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... Steve -- Steve Harrington _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Amen. Many groups find the.iris method too stilted and restricted. Haven't used it for years Sent from my Kindle Fire _____________________________________________ From: R Williams <rcwmbw@yahoo.com> Sent: Thu May 03 07:06:15 EDT 2012 To: Steve Harrington <stevehar11201@gmail.com> Cc: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Steve, 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. 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. 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. Randy "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." -Martin Buber (adapted) From: steve har <stevehar11201@gmail.com> To: dialogue@wedgeblade.net Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots 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." 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. 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. 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. 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]. 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. 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. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ 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. 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 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... Steve -- Steve Harrington _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Very precise, Randy, and this is my experience also. Al Lingo clingojr@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: R Williams <rcwmbw@yahoo.com> To: Steve Harrington <stevehar11201@gmail.com> Cc: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@wedgeblade.net> Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 7:06 am Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Steve, 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. 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. 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. Randy "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." -Martin Buber (adapted) From: steve har <stevehar11201@gmail.com> To: dialogue@wedgeblade.net Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots 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." 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. 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. 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. 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]. 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. 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. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ 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. 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 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... Steve -- Steve Harrington _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Well said Randy! As I applied our methods to my work in education I found myself moving away from strict adherence to the "script" with an emphasis on desired (often manipulated) outcomes. Like Cynthia I found that approach stilted and that it did not yield the outcome of the partnering that you allude to. Joyce Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Al Lingo <clingojr@aol.com> Sender: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.netDate: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:21:37 To: <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Reply-To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Skilled Use Stilted, scripted conversations and manipulated outcomes are not good for anyone. They do bad things to the human spirit. They should not happen. We've all seen things worse than have been mentioned. These are neither flagrant fouls committed on purpose nor are they fundamental flaws in the methodology itself. I think all of those things and a host of others are very resolvable issues. There are, built into the methodology itself, ways to successfully address all of those concerns. We've been working pretty intensively on it for years. Some have to do with the stance and intent of the facilitator. As Tracey says, there's nothing to teach in a conversation. People can smell an agenda across an ocean. Ideology stinks and ours has gotten somewhat rank. Let it go. There is no particular way people ought to be or think or act. they have to figure it out themselves and to think you know better is nothing but hubris of the very worst form. There is no reason to manipulate a group toward a particular end - indeed that is, I believe, highly unethical. When you are preparing to go to a group, it is only that very group, who they are and what they need to achieve is what you look at. Tools bag stays closed. If you think you already have a script for this, you are likely headed for a crash. There can be no conversation - no model for one without a grounded understanding of what the conversation must do for, to or with the group. Your ideas about who they should be or what they should think, believe or do are dangerous impediments to success. Your beliefs about self and relations and society are yours. Your job is not to get people to be like you. It is to get them to work things out for themselves. There are no eternal truths that they must key into - no great secret. Life is a journey that can only be taken by the specific pilgrim and every traveler's way is different. One of the concerns I think is quite relevant is our underuse, misuse, and fear of the existential aim. We know that every human and every group faces life questions all the time. There is no single set of "deep spirit problems" that one can just tick. You have to suss it out every time and when you do, every conversation is a unique adventure into enabling authenticity. If all they can say is,"It sucks to be us", you aren't asking enough questions. If it seems like the point is to make people feel good about a session and have lots of fun and wuv each other, it might just be time to read Kirerkegaard again. We've chosen to work these issues through; so we can use the Focused Conversation Method / Art Form Method in ways that enable our clients to move forward. We've seen a lot of really good conversations. We have experiences similar to John's quite often. People tell us they use the conversations in The Art of Focused Conversation pretty much straight out of the book with success that amazes them. Correspondences There are a lot of facilitation, consulting formats that are similar to the O-R-I-D process. Piles of them. They are, as John said, natural enough that lots of people discover them. I've poked around and done some research in this area, because correspondences are both intriguing and dangerous. The first thing I discovered is that every corresponding approach was developed many years after the Focused Conversation Method / Art Form Method was already old. I have also found that the overwhelming majority of these corresponding approaches are based on individualism and psychology. I just downloaded an article on one called Authentic Conversation from the ToP network. It's interesting that the approach uses four stages that have very similar names. That's where the substantial similarity ends. The assumptions are different. The purpose is different. The style and questioning are different. I can only imagine that the results must be very different. Perhaps not bad - maybe even really great, but very distinctly different in every way but the titling of the levels. I'm just saying that looking at the diagram and reading the text told me much different stories. It's nice to see similarities and it is great to affirm things holus-bolus (all is good and no 2 ways about it) , but each thing that uses similar words is not the same. Those who want to make this methodology work can be confident that these concerns related to application and use can be resolved. It does not need to be stilted and if it is, there are ways to deal with a variety of these problems. Those who find they can't or are unwilling to make the effort to make it work well should be looking for other approaches. It's OK. No apologies needed. You need something - Go for it. Find something that will do what you believe this methodology should do. Those who want or need different approaches in order to do different types of idea processing should explore and experiment and find new stuff. Getting stuck in a single approach is kind of counter intuitive if you are trying to accomplish something. Fair enough. The point is to do good in the world, I think. \\/ - - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson wnelson@ica-associates.ca O - 416-691-2316 M - 647-229-6910
Well said as usual, Wayne Priscilla Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Wayne Nelson <wnelson@ica-associates.ca> wrote:
Skilled Use
Stilted, scripted conversations and manipulated outcomes are not good for anyone. They do bad things to the human spirit. They should not happen. We've all seen things worse than have been mentioned. These are neither flagrant fouls committed on purpose nor are they fundamental flaws in the methodology itself. I think all of those things and a host of others are very resolvable issues. There are, built into the methodology itself, ways to successfully address all of those concerns. We've been working pretty intensively on it for years.
Some have to do with the stance and intent of the facilitator. As Tracey says, there's nothing to teach in a conversation. People can smell an agenda across an ocean. Ideology stinks and ours has gotten somewhat rank. Let it go. There is no particular way people ought to be or think or act. they have to figure it out themselves and to think you know better is nothing but hubris of the very worst form. There is no reason to manipulate a group toward a particular end - indeed that is, I believe, highly unethical.
When you are preparing to go to a group, it is only that very group, who they are and what they need to achieve is what you look at. Tools bag stays closed. If you think you already have a script for this, you are likely headed for a crash. There can be no conversation - no model for one without a grounded understanding of what the conversation must do for, to or with the group.
Your ideas about who they should be or what they should think, believe or do are dangerous impediments to success. Your beliefs about self and relations and society are yours. Your job is not to get people to be like you. It is to get them to work things out for themselves. There are no eternal truths that they must key into - no great secret. Life is a journey that can only be taken by the specific pilgrim and every traveler's way is different.
One of the concerns I think is quite relevant is our underuse, misuse, and fear of the existential aim. We know that every human and every group faces life questions all the time. There is no single set of "deep spirit problems" that one can just tick. You have to suss it out every time and when you do, every conversation is a unique adventure into enabling authenticity. If all they can say is,"It sucks to be us", you aren't asking enough questions. If it seems like the point is to make people feel good about a session and have lots of fun and wuv each other, it might just be time to read Kirerkegaard again.
We've chosen to work these issues through; so we can use the Focused Conversation Method / Art Form Method in ways that enable our clients to move forward. We've seen a lot of really good conversations. We have experiences similar to John's quite often. People tell us they use the conversations in The Art of Focused Conversation pretty much straight out of the book with success that amazes them.
Correspondences
There are a lot of facilitation, consulting formats that are similar to the O-R-I-D process. Piles of them. They are, as John said, natural enough that lots of people discover them. I've poked around and done some research in this area, because correspondences are both intriguing and dangerous. The first thing I discovered is that every corresponding approach was developed many years after the Focused Conversation Method / Art Form Method was already old. I have also found that the overwhelming majority of these corresponding approaches are based on individualism and psychology.
I just downloaded an article on one called Authentic Conversation from the ToP network. It's interesting that the approach uses four stages that have very similar names. That's where the substantial similarity ends. The assumptions are different. The purpose is different. The style and questioning are different. I can only imagine that the results must be very different. Perhaps not bad - maybe even really great, but very distinctly different in every way but the titling of the levels. I'm just saying that looking at the diagram and reading the text told me much different stories.
It's nice to see similarities and it is great to affirm things holus-bolus (all is good and no 2 ways about it) , but each thing that uses similar words is not the same.
Those who want to make this methodology work can be confident that these concerns related to application and use can be resolved. It does not need to be stilted and if it is, there are ways to deal with a variety of these problems.
Those who find they can't or are unwilling to make the effort to make it work well should be looking for other approaches. It's OK. No apologies needed. You need something - Go for it. Find something that will do what you believe this methodology should do.
Those who want or need different approaches in order to do different types of idea processing should explore and experiment and find new stuff. Getting stuck in a single approach is kind of counter intuitive if you are trying to accomplish something.
Fair enough. The point is to do good in the world, I think.
\\/
- - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson wnelson@ica-associates.ca O - 416-691-2316 M - 647-229-6910
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
participants (7)
-
Al Lingo -
Cynthia Vance -
Joyce Sloan -
R Williams -
steve har -
Wayne Nelson -
Wilson Priscilla