[Dialogue] ToP Methods
Terry Bergdall
bergdall2 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 03:55:15 CDT 2009
You most have trouble sleeping. And here I am reading it at 3:50 am!
Terry
On 17 Oct 2009, at 00:23, Bill Parker wrote:
> Wayne, 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list