Well said John, How deep also depends on the facilitator listening and adapting to the dialogue being pursued. Each is speaking into and creating the 4 levels and the "right" question is that which opens the door in this conversation, sometime that question is silence. With respect, Larry Lawrence Philbrook, Certified ToP Facilitator Director, Institute of Cultural Affairs Taiwan www.icatw.com Tel: 8862-2871-3150 Fax: 8862-2871-2870 Skype: icalarry President ICA International/ Member Global Leadership Team ICAI Office c/o ICA Canada, 655 Queen Street East Toronto, ON. M4M 1G4 Canada www.ica-international.org On 5/3/2012 11:21 PM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote:

Colleagues:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I look forward to your responses.

John Epps

At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote:

...

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 <mailto: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

_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

Dear colleagues, Happy 50th Anniversary! I first experienced the art form method in the pre-schools in Fifth City. It was a reflective process we used in all the curriculum designs we created for babies, 2 year olds, 3,4,5 year olds and on up. Many times the process took place through painting a picture, sharing a game, dramatizing being hurt on the playground etc. Words were sometimes spoken . Sometimes they weren't. Perhaps a yes ritual at the end . The focused conversation is one form of this reflective process. I can go through this process alone on a beach or in the midst of a crowded bus. It helps me experience life as my teacher. And I notice that this reflective process goes on in others and needs to be encouraged and given space and time to emerge. Ps This is a pitch for chapter 10, Self-conscious reflection of the 2nd edition of The Courage to Lead which will be out shortly through iUniverse publishing. Thank you for all our adventures together, Jeanette Stanfield On 2012-05-03, at 11:21 AM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote:

Colleagues:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I look forward to your responses.

John Epps

At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote:

...

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

---

Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

Thanks, John This is an interesting conversation. I feel having a having a variety of methods available for use and not being bound to any one way of doing things important. I find listening carefully and being in a place of openness is more important than any particular method. There are a lot of different conversation methods to select from. I've seen groups bond and thrive using ORID, and without any seeming "method" at all. When people listen carefully to one another; everyone is given a chance to speak without interruption; and everyone is included, amazing things happen. I still find using the ORID sequence (visible or not) deepens conversations. I've recently done some planning with an individual whose life was in chaos. I used Appreciative Inquiry for pre-planning; ORID with the Action Plan; Spirit conversations a couple of times; and deep listening, saying almost nothing. The conversations were always free flowing. This woman said the experience was the most helpful thing she'd ever done and felt it made moving forward possible for her. In my experience the "mind change" dynamic happens anywhere, any time with any "method" or no methods at all. And I've see it happen often using ORID, which I still refer to in my imagination as the Art Form Method, our lives being living, breathing art forms. An historical note: In 1998 Glenna Gerard and Linda Ellinor wrote Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation and started the Dialogue Group. I went to their session at an Organization Development Network conference in San Francisco in the late 90's and it was terrific. I appreciated what they were doing and felt it was a great addition to the world of "conversation methods". I think they came to a ToP course in SF that Pat Tuecke and I did. Pat may recall. In the San Francisco Bay Area organization development people were doing a lot cross pollination. I also think they did a session at an IAF conference. Beret Griffith From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of jlepps@pc.jaring.my Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:22 AM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Colleagues: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I look forward to your responses. John Epps At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote: 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