[Dialogue] ToP Methods

Sat Oct 17 00:23:08 CDT 2009

Re: [Dialogue] ToP MethodsWayne, don't take this personally. I am actually addressing all of us, myself included. 

I simply must ask these questions in light of Jim's point about RSI and Joe's impact, plus Dick's question about making the buck. Also, after reading this listserve for a long time, it might be a good idea for us to practice saying what we actually mean rather than depend on the broad abstractions jargon produces. If we are as in tune with those whom we facilitate as we imply, then this should not be a problem.

What is that life address when the methods are used well? To which methods are you referring? What sustainable change have you seen in any organizational culture as a result of only those methods? How have companies changed their operations soley based on these methods? How do we know there is a life address inherent in our facilitation processes, and what is it? How do you know when you see it? And how do we put language on it that is not 40 years old. Is it not the case that we have all experienced many manifestations of the methods that does not have a life address even with good facilitators doing the work? Have we not see, regardless of who is leading the session a very abstract set of platitudes with which no one can disagree? Or maybe you have seen our methods, used well, yet create an elaborate 30,000 foot level picture of superficiality. Has anyone sat with facilitators who use the methods well yet inspite of the energy produce a boring experience, leaving people wondering whether the time was worth it? 

Making money employing these methods does not seem to be an issue. However, these methods were created by many people over a 20 year timeframe for the purpose of giving the world methods for sustainable development, for the sake of the earth and its people. When these same methods are made proprietary, trademarked intellectual properties and with distribution being controlled, the resulting image shows not such a high purpose regardless of the language surrounding it.  It could be difficult to reverse the notion that these methods are being driven by authoritarian and monetary purposes at the expense of changing lives, communities, or corporations. Joseph would probably puke, as Salinger stated it. 

Now, what are we about? How is what we are about with these methods different from what we were about when the methods were created and refined? Do we need new thinking about this? Have we just gone too far down the road, or have we become a little bit too comfortable, to rethink what changes we might need to consider. One of the underlying, unstated, statements in the above set of questions is that methods alone do not bring about all this transformation. It still requires someone to put their life into the change and transformation beyond the methods; someone who will risk their life if necessary; someone who is will stay on that transformation over the long haul. Otherwise, we can use those methods, or any other method, all we want and nothing will change. It certainly does not happen with methods alone, even when used by facilitation experts, nor by spending a few days developing a report. So, how does that happen?

Just asking.

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wayne Nelson 
  To: Colleague Dialogue 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP Methods

  Without question, there is a life address - in individuals and in whole groups - when ToP methods are used well. It's transparent, as I believe it should be. People's individual  lives and organizational cultures do change. People and organizations make substantial changes in the way they operate.  We've seen it all over the place. We see it happen in training event and in facilitated events. 

  My memory and theory - - -
  As I recall, the substitution of "Experiential" for "Existential happened when we began formally teaching ToP methods.  Existential is not a term in common parlance. We know there's a life address inherent in our facilitation processes.  We want to include it and use it with intentionality, because we want to make an impact. My guess is that those who designed the first courses thought through the terminology very carefully. Experiential is a term that can be grasped by those who want to facilitate and do training. It's easier to swallow. 

  I do think a couple of things have happened. I feel we have lost some of he edge simply from contextual drift over time. The more psychological meaning of experiential is easier for many to grasp than the original philosophical intent; so there's a tendency in that direction. I've heard people substitute "visceral" for this aim. There are also those who use that aim to refer to the quality of experience they want people to have during the session. That's what I think is meant by "watering down."   

  I also think there are those who want the deeper intents to be more obvious. We want people to face reality, grasp their possibility and act out of a posture of responsibility etc.   To me this leads to using the Existential / Experiential objective as a kind of "hidden agenda." As if we have something to teach when we are facilitating. As if there is some subtle content "message" we want them to get. As if a facilitated event should be an RS1. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but I've seen some hints of it. It makes people scratch their heads about us. 

  My question has to do with what we really mean and intend with these parts of our design process. I believe we need both of these dimension in our methodology. I know I struggle to communicate the real intent behind them in ways that real people can understand, integrate and use.

  We do make money doing this. We've always dreamed about the ability to earn a decent living doing what we do best. It has to do with being sustainable in the fullest sense of the term.  Superficial use of our methods will damage our reputation, dampen our impact and lose us money.  

  \\/

  "Richard Alton"  wrote:

    Great QUESTION, Jim! Are we changing lives or just making a 'fast buck' in the market? I struggle with the question of evangelism, but like the WORD.
    Dick

    Richard H.T. Alton International Consultants and Associates 'building global bridges' 166 N. Humphrey Ave, Apt, 1N Oak Park, IL 60302 T:1.773.344.7172 richard.alton at gmail.com Don't let the fear of striking out hold you back  Babe Ruth

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:26:50 -0700
    From: jfwiegel at yahoo.com
    To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net; oe at wedgeblade.net
    Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP Methods

    So, here is my question:  Looking at facilitation as we developed it and compared to address your life pedagogy like in RS-1 and then compared to the impact which Joe could generate on individuals and groups -- are these all the same thing, or quite different things?

    If more or less the same, how would you describe this at its best?  Has this style of evangelism evolved and become refined or has it gotten watered down?

    If different, how, and which are needed these days?

    Jim

    Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun.  G. K. Chesterton

    Jim Wiegel
    401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
    +1  623-936-8671   +1  623-363-3277
       jfwiegel at yahoo.com   www.partnersinparticipation.com <http://www.partnersinparticipation.com> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: W. J. <synergi at yahoo.com>
    To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>; dialogue at wedgeblade.net
    Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 7:17:03 PM
    Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP Methods

    You can see why there were different Gospels in the Bible, and that was long before Wiegel was summoned to the Holy Land to preach his revised standard version of the Facilitator's Gospel. "Experiential Aim"? Where did that come from? Isn't that the new Liberalism creeping in to dilute the authentic EI Orthodoxy? Everybody who knew JWM knows it is "Existential Aim" -- and you better believe it really addressed your existence just to be around the Old Man.
    And the "O" in ORID -- wasn't that originally just "Impressionistic"? And wasn't "R" originally "Subjective"? And wasn't "D" originally "Theological"? So ORID = ISIT?
    Ah, the problems of generational transmission of the authentic received canonical tradition! (Big Clue: I'm laughing!)

    Marshall

    >From where I sit, ORID reminds me of King Henry's death sentence pronounced on Thomas Becket: "Will no One RID me of this meddlesome priest?" Or something like that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: James Wiegel <jfwiegel at yahoo.com>
    To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>; Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:33:45 PM
    Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] ToP Methods

    As I recall, these were an old, old idea.  When we were putting together the ToP curriculum with those horizontal bubble tables we added in Rational Objective and Experiential objective to the manuals -- after 3 or 4 years someone expressed confusion between Rational "Objective" and Experiential "Objective" and "Objective" as in ORID, so when the manual was redone we changed to Rational Aim and Experiential Aim.

    In actuality, though, there is a very rich and wise diversity in the ways by which ToP facilitators actually focus and prepare themselves.  It would be a great contribution to our craft to hear from many people how they do this . . 

    Jim

    Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun.  G. K. Chesterton

    Jim Wiegel
    401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
    +1  623-936-8671   +1  623-363-3277
       jfwiegel at yahoo.com   www.partnersinparticipation.com <http://www.partnersinparticipation.com> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson at ica-associates.ca>
    To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>; Order Ecumenical <oe at wedgeblade.net>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:23:46 PM
    Subject: [Oe List ...] ToP Methods

    Here's a memory question - maybe something you heard.

    When, how and why did we introduce the ideas of using Rational and Existential aims when we prepare for a facilitated event or a training event?

    Does anyone know that history? I'm curious.

    \\/
    < >  < >  < >  < >  < > 
    Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc
    ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell - 647-229-6910
    http://ica-associates.ca

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _______________________________________________
    Dialogue mailing list
    Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
    http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

  < >  < >  < >  < >  < > 
  Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc
  ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell - 647-229-6910
  http://ica-associates.ca

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Dialogue mailing list
  Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20091017/8b64a24d/attachment-0001.html>