[Dialogue] Our Legacy: Next Steps?

[David Walters]

I wonder if we could use one of the online meeting programs, like
GoToMeeting, to do a cotporate gestalt of this brainstorm data?
I also wonder if any of thede programs would allow the person leadin g the
metting to worjk from a whiteboard?

David Walters






> Many thanks to all of you who contributed your lists of what our
> community's legacy has to include.  These are gathered now on the
> Repository (http://wiki.wedgeblade.net/bin/view/Main/BrainStorm), and
> we'll add others to the page as they appear.  That your thoughts had a
> role in sparking the wonderful "Yes" initiative of the Cocks and
> Holcombes, as well as all the yesses that generated, makes for a
> delightful Christmas combination.
>
> Perhaps it's time to see if we can carry this one step further yet.  The
> marvelous listing we've generated, however meaningful to those of us who
> were there, wouldn't mean much to one who wasn't.  We're currently
> hoping to pass on or at least make available some of these pieces of our
> legacy to another generation in the ICA / Oklahoma City University OIKOS
> partnership.  What would most help us do that?
>
> I find myself looking for two things now that could build on what we've
> started.
>
>     * First, an intuitive gestalt. If some of us would take a shot at
>       saying now what the three, four or six major aspects of our legacy
>       consist of, I'd find that rather thrilling--and some of these
>       might form the basis for future conversations with that Oklahoma
>       crowd.  These key elements or components would again be an
>       individual, very personal take or witness on our heritage, none
>       complete or perfect, but they could catalyze another level of
>       great dialogue.  Can we still "go snake eyes" on such a list?
>
>       Maybe we could think of this as akin to what Randy Williams did so
>       beautifully this past summer at the OIKOS gathering, when he,
>       along with David Dunn's help I believe on the Power Point,
>       presented a succinct and intelligible depiction of our life and
>       work to the assembled faculty and students.  What if each of us
>       had just been tapped to sum up and explain who we are and what our
>       community might have of value to share with future members of the
>       League?  What would our 4 x 4 look like?
>
>       These wouldn't have to be as terse as most items on our brainstorm
>       list (skip the three-to-five words requirement, as many of you
>       helpfully did in your brainstorms).  Each could be a sentence or
>       even a paragraph, as we prefer.
>
>     * Second, some expanded explanation, preferably in generally
>       accepted English, of items we listed in the brainstorm.  "Imaginal
>       Education" requires a paragraph or two just to give others a
>       fleeting glimpse or whispery taste of what those words point to.
>       Same with "religious houses" or "two suitcases."  One of us might
>       start on one of these, and others chime in with additional detail,
>       which would be great. Again, as these are generated, Len and I
>       will try to add them to the Repository (or you of course could do
>       that yourself).
>
>       (This makes me think of that old /ICA Glossary/ that some of the
>       young interns initiated and their successors continued to add to
>       over the years, that circulated in the old Phoenix office.  It was
>       their explanation to each other of commonly used terms that
>       newbies would hear in the course of their daily work.  Be fun to
>       see it, if someone from down there still has it on a computer.)
>
>
> So, those are my two suggestions for ways to pursue the conversation and
> contribute further to the legacy discussion.  I'm going to kick it off
> with my own four points for the proposed talk.  The foundational things
> about our legacy that I'd want to hit (at least at this moment) would be:
>
> ---------------------
>
>    1. Our Methods.  The amazing set of intellectual, social and spirit
>       methodologies that we developed, tested on ourselves and then took
>       to the world.  These of course include but go way beyond ToP.
>
>    2.   Building a Movement.  Our understanding of what made for
>       authentic community, our attempt to demonstrate a form of
>       missional and disciplined intentional community and to build that
>       outward in the symbolic, movemental and extended order and in the
>       local and organizational communities with which we worked.
>
>    3. Our Foundational Assumptions.  The core beliefs about the way life
>       is that we operated out of, that held us together, that we sought
>       to embody and communicate in things like RS-I, our singing and
>       rituals and our projects.
>
>    4. Our Historical Journey.  The stories of how we began and what
>       happened to us along the way.  The programs we developed, modified
>       and in some cases discarded over the years.  What we sought to
>       awaken or put in place as we tried to discern and respond to the
>       call and claim on our lives.
>
> ------------------------
>
> Well, there's my first run at a talk I have no intention of ever
> giving.  Ask me tomorrow, and it will almost certainly be different.  I
> can't imagine even lightly brushing all of this in as succinct a fashion
> as Randy managed in his presentation.  Still, as we all know,in the
> lecture methodyou start with lots more than you'll finally use.
>
> OK, have a great holiday, everyone, and as facilitators as fond of
> saying, "Someone else . . . !"
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>