[Dialogue] Getting arrested

[Jeanette Stanfield]

Yes I believe that professor was Suzanne K. Langer.  We studied her  
paper: Art as Living Form in the Psychology and Art course.

Jeanette


On 21-May-10, at 1:26 PM, W. J. wrote:

> Wayne, I believe our late colleague Brian in his book "More  
> Than. . ." traced JWM's phenomenological ORID method back to the  
> development of the art form conversation which he says Mathews was  
> inspired to create by interacting with an art history professor  
> (unnamed in the book) who taught him about dialogical/existential  
> encounters with art forms. Hence, Guernica.
>
> I recall that nearly half a century ago Kaze, Marilyn, LiDonna and  
> others taught a 4-weekend imaginal education methods course in Room  
> B in which Kaze laid out a SIX level chart of 'Mary Had a Little  
> Lamb.' I never quite got my mind around those last two levels.
>
> Marshall
>
> From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson at ica-associates.ca>
> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 8:45:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Can I get arrested for doing an artform  
> conversation?
>
>
>
> 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 ‘Father of  
> Phenomonology.”  There are clearly elements from all of them in this  
> methodology. David also mentioned that Being and Time was one of  
> Joe’s key sources for the NRM “Being” 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 Bultman’s 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 “How to Read a  
> Book” by Mortimer Adler. He and his brother encountered it in  
> graduate school. You’ll find a nice write up of that experience in  
> Bishop Jim’s book, “Brother Joe.”  That book led to what we know  
> today as “charting.”  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. It’s 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. It’s 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. We’ve used a few different terms for some of the  
> “levels” because we’ve 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.
>
> I’m 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.  “This” may seem like “that”, but it would be a mistake  
> to say “this is that” without a deeper look.
>
> We can cast our eyes down, twist on our toe and sweetly say, “Aw  
> shucks, it wasn’t really us.” all we like, but it was “us” - 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 sayin’
>
> \\/
>
>
> < >  < >  < >  < >  < >
> 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/20100521/1b8a9b33/attachment-0001.html>