[Dialogue] Getting arrested

Fri May 21 13:41:46 CDT 2010

That was Suzanne Langer. I¹ve only touched her work so far.

I¹ve got ³How to Read a Book² and lots of our material on charting. That¹s
yet another exploration.

I¹m currently trying to work on the material from Bultman. John Bagget and
John Epps are giving me clues. There¹s a paper by Fred Gaely that deals with
this, but I think there¹s a bit of a gap in his ³levels.²

Thank you.

\\/

"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 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100521/a663abb0/attachment.html>