[Dialogue] ToP Foundations

[Wayne Nelson]

Oh, the boilers. What a mad dance we did with them.  I remember firing up
the boiler in 341 in like October. Worked fine. I got a frantic call about
an hour later saying one of the apartments was filled with steam. I hauled
ass down there and shut off the boiler. I went upstairs to find that one of
our colleagues had absent mindedly unscrewed the relief valve while reading,
leaving a1/2 inch hole shooting raw steam into their apartment. The place
was total fog. Luckily he still had it. Their place was totally soggy.


"Ken Fisher"  wrote:
> Heidegger as a 20th Century distraction.
> 
> I heard that interview. The part that got me was Heidegger¹s work is so dense
> and unintelligible that it becomes a blank slate upon which people write
> whatever they want.
> 
> David McClesky pointed me to the phenomonologists. When you find Heidegger,
> Kierkegaard, Sarte and Bultman saying the same thing about what it means to be
> human, you have to take notice. Joe did. I think Joe¹s use of Heidegger was
> expertly done. We didn¹t exactly know Joe this way, but he was an amazing
> Œacademic.¹ He did not see it as too dense to penetrate. He actually made a
> lot of sense out of Being and Time and was able to see alignment between the
> philosophers and the theologians. David said Joe got a lot of his 1970 ŒBeing²
> lecture from Heidegger.  With all his hyphenated phrases -  bringing thoughts
> together about a bazillion little ways of being in the world, it makes sense
> as one of his sources. Hard reading for the likes of me.
> 
> 
> Another part of the story that I liked, was to reference Barth (?) as the
> author of the Art Form method.
> 
> Joe and the crowd at the Faith and Life community in the 50¹s are responsible
> for that and Barth played a role.
> 
> As I recall, his approach to remythologizing sripture was to ask
> 
> 1. What was the historical context?
> 2. What did it mean then?
> 3. If this were said today, how would it be stated?
> 4. So, what is the demand on you/us, hearing that today?
> 
> I used the structure in the Gaely paper from the academy as a kind of
> Œsuperstructure¹ for the demythologizing process. It no doubt showed up in
> numerous ways. What you say is in exactly in synch with that, of course,
> because Barth and Bultman were key in launching this approach to hermanutics.
> Out of that and charting came the seminar method. I believe it played a
> massive role in shaping our approach to working with groups and in refining
> the core methodology.
> 
> \\/
> 

< >  < >  < >  < >  < >
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/20110126/d6b5c34a/attachment-0001.html>