[Dialogue] ToP Foundations

[Lynda Cock]

How grateful we all are for those of you dear ones who kept the heat going!
Thank you for sharing these stories.    Lynda  

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Wayne Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:14 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP Foundations


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 Heidegger's 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 Joe's use of Heidegger
was expertly done. We didn't exactly know Joe this way, but he was an
amazing 'academic.' 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 'Being" 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 50's 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
'superstructure' 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/20110126/16ee3c7c/attachment.html>