[Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an artform conversation?

[Wayne Nelson]

David Kolb published Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development in 1984 through Prentice-Hall.

I spoke with David McClesky about the origins of our method several years
ago.  He said the the O-R-I-D methodology was pretty firmly in place when he
entered the Order in 1959.

When I asked David about the sources, he said, as near as he could tell, JWM
put it together working with material from Soren Kierkegaard (primarily
Sickness unto Death), Edmund Husserl (Ideas Pertaining to a Pure
Phenomonology and to a Phenomonological Philosophy), Martin Heidegger (Being
and Time) and Jean-Paul Sartre (Being and Nothingness.)  These people we
among the key figures in the branches of philosophy we call phenomonology
and existentialism. Some say that SK was the first to break through into
this area and I tend to agree. Husserl is often called the ŒFather of
Phenomonology.²  There are clearly elements from all of them in this
methodology. David also mentioned that Being and Time was one of Joe¹s key
sources for the NRM ³Being² lecture.

He also used a lot from Rudolph Bultman, particularly in the area of
demythologizing biblical literature and relating gospel to existential
questions.  Interestingly enough, one of Bultman¹s key sources for the
actual methodology in demythologizing came from Heidegger. He obviously got
a great deal from HR Neibur, largely in the area of ethics. Along with
Tillich, Bohhoffer and R Neibur, they were the leading Christian
existentialists.

Another one of what I believe to be a key source was ³How to Read a Book² by
Mortimer Adler. He and his brother encountered it in graduate school. You¹ll
find a nice write up of that experience in Bishop Jim¹s book, ³Brother Joe.²
That book led to what we know today as ³charting.²  The charting methodology
dovetails really well with the demythologizing process and the approach we
used in RS1 seminars. Duh! !  There were several other sources related to
our overall methodology and certainly to our application of it and the
myriad of forms it has taken.

I believe the crucible for this work was the classes Joe taught at Perkins
and the teaching - spirit formation work he did in the Faith and Life
Community.  It was not simply drawn together by inuition either. It¹s
becoming clearer and clearer to me that Joe was as major scholar. Try even
reading some of that stuff, much less make sense of it. It¹s damn hard
slogging. To have taken these very abstract ideas from philosophy and
theology and refined them into the simple, elegant methodology we have today
evokes real awe in me. Genius entirely.

In reading their original work, I am firmly persuaded that Joe and whoever
else, likely Jack Lewis, created a unique form of phenomonological inquiry.
It has morphed and changed very little over the years. We¹ve used a few
different terms for some of the ³levels² because we¹ve focused its use on
both spiritual formation and practical planning.  i.e. Demythologizing a
biblical passage requires a different set of questions than planning
strategies. 

I¹m working on an essay about all this, but it is not really in shape for
wide distribution yet. It has led me to some really interesting discoveries,
but the one relevant to this conversation is that the core and basic
application of this methodology was not taken directly from any specific
source. It was created.

We know that there have been many parallel developments of this nature.  It
is really important to distinguish between correspondences and the thing
itself. There are a lot of similarities. Edgar Schein and Kolb are the two
most well known. There are several others formats that go through a similar
set of developmental movements. They are similar and they inform us in our
explanation and use, but they are distinct and different in several subtle
ways.  ³This² may seem like ³that², but it would be a mistake to say ³this
is that² without a deeper look.

We can cast our eyes down, twist on our toe and sweetly say, ³Aw shucks, it
wasn¹t really us.² all we like, but it was ³us² - well, mostly Joe. Not only
was it us, it continues to be us who work with this living material and
continue to deepen our understanding of it, use it and refine it.

That is not to say, in any way, that there is any justification whatsoever
for treating our collegues disrespectfully. That whole episode, as I see it,
was completely unrelated to anything related to methodology or copyright or
anything of the sort. It was more, I believe, the fallout from unresolved
economic and polity related problems.  Remember in the old days ­ when
people started complaining about the food; you knew there were deeper
problems afoot that needed addressing.

Just sayin¹

\\/


< >  < >  < >  < >  < >
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/20100521/cd5930a1/attachment.html>