[Dialogue] ToP Methods
Wayne Nelson
wnelson at ica-associates.ca
Sat Oct 17 12:12:51 CDT 2009
Fair questions, Bill. I think we need to be raising them. If we are to put
in place anything that will truly make a difference and sustain itself into
the future, I¹d like to see that it actually does make a difference.
Only? Solely? That¹s not going to happen. I doubt there is any organization
or community where anything is the sole influence. I¹d say it would be
impossible for that to happen. We work in a world of multiple factors
working in dynamic interaction.
I wish we did have the capacity for a heavy duty study. It would take some
rigorous qualitative research. I only know one person who comes close to
that capacity and he is up to his a** in alligators at the moment reading
email in the middle of the night. Capacity, time and money would be the
prime considerations, I think. We¹ve talked about it at ICA in Canada, but
we haven¹t done it in any meaningful way. We¹re too busy doing. That¹s the
rub. We certainly have ³anecdotal² evidence from our clients when they talk
to us about how things have changed, but even that has never been
systematically collected or studied for the same reasons. A ToP facilitator
I have a great deal of respect for once said to me that we have made far
more impact in the world since 1988 than we ever had before that.I suspect
he¹s right. I¹d love to be able to document it.
There is a group of very good, smart people working on the intellectual
property concerns. It¹s an initiative that rose out of the Chicago ICA
meeting last year. The thinking, as I gather it is to move toward a
³Creative Commons² kind of open source licensing. The work is in very early
stages. Who knows where it will take us?
I suspect, as you suggest, that there has been some contextual drift over
the years. That would be natural and unavoidable. We all read and study. We
see connections and some of us run with them even if they are entirely at
the reflective level, totally bogus and have led us to something that is
quite out of alignment with the deeper purposes of our facilitation
methodologies. We¹ve also picked up a lot along the way that strengthens,
deepens and extends our approach in ways that are consistent with the
philosophical core. We are doing this in dispersion and have not been able
to look at it in any systematic, non-defensive way.
I¹m asking about our history and use of the existential / experiential aim
for that very reason. I think it is one not he only one - of the keys to
what could be called ³faithfulness to the deeper intentions.² My limited
sample tells me that some of our thought in this area has shifted from the
existential to the psychological. In a way, we ³chickened out² in an effort
to make our material more understandable an palatable. I¹d like to peel back
that onion to get beyond the jargon, in-group drivel and semantic crap to
what the intent of that dimension of our work needs to be about. I¹d like to
get beyond ³RS1² (itself, a secondary source) to the thought behind it. I¹d
like to come up with ways it can be communicated and understood by those
taking our courses and using our methods today.
There¹s another wee difficulty in peeling back the layers of the onion.
Because of en existential, anti-academic bias the layers were intentionally
left unlabeled in order to focus on the actual life address and avoid
escape. We have some clues, but they are few, far between and damn hard
slogging. I had a conversation with David McClesky about this once and he
suggested this short list.
* Keirkegaard¹s ³Sickness unto Death² and I¹m thinking maybe ³Either/Or² and
³Philosophical Fragments² as well.
* Hussrel¹s ³Ideas about a Pure Phenomonology² and some of his other work in
giving definition to the phenomonological approach
* Heidegger¹s ³Being and Time²
* Sartre¹s ³Being and Nothingness²
Having tried to read and make sense from some of this stuff, I have gained a
massive amount of respect for JWM and his colleagues. They were actually
able to dig through these works, find a coherent body of thought and
articulate it in understandable, useful terms. Big ups to all of them. ŒNuff
respect. Sure they¹d puke when they see some of the work being done. I
thoroughly believe they would also draw in a deep breath of awe and
appreciation for what has happened.
Yeah, I think we need conversations about this stuff. We need to shed our
defensiveness and do the kind of open inquiry that these methods were
intended to guide. We probably need to go behind then and beyond them. This
is a living body of knowledge and practice, not an archeological artifact.
\\/
"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 <mailto:wnelson at ica-associates.ca>
>>
>> To: Colleague Dialogue <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
>>
>> 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. It¹s transparent, as I believe it
>> should be. People¹s individual lives and organizational cultures do change.
>> People and organizations make substantial changes in the way they operate.
>> We¹ve 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 ³Experiential² for ³Existential happened
>> when we began formally teaching ToP methods. Existential is not a term in
>> common parlance. We know there¹s 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.
>> It¹s 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 there¹s a tendency in that direction. I¹ve heard people
>> substitute ³visceral² 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. That¹s what I think is meant by ³watering down.²
>>
>> 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 ³hidden agenda.² As if we have something
>> to teach when we are facilitating. As if there is some subtle content
>> ³message² we want them to get. As if a facilitated event should be an RS1.
>> Obviously, that¹s an exaggeration, but I¹ve 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. We¹ve 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
>>>
>>> Here¹s 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? I¹m 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
< > < > < > < > < >
Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc
ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell 647-229-6910
http://ica-associates.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20091017/d1c962cc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list