[Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles

Sun Feb 28 22:01:31 CST 2010

________________________________

thanks Bill, for putting the conversation back on track.  I apologize for being glib.

See my responses interwoven with your questions.  Best I could do  Jim Wiegel.
The questions put forth to all of us, myself included, arose
from the dialogue thread on IP rights. In fact, you said, "I just think
all the people who have made more than $150,000 using the triangles should at
least report that so we know."  Know what?  Why?
That
was a wise crack, sorry . . .
So, let me clearly state the 10
questions raised that need to be answered on the subject of IP rights.

        1. Why is the IP rights
question so important?
I am not sure it is directly.  When
these things come up on the list serves to me they are just conversations that
may be productive.  This one has gone
over some old ground – most everything from our “common memory” (pre 1986 or
so, is old enough that it is no longer protected, and as a part of dissolving
the outfit we kind of gave all of us permission to use whatever we chose.
I found myself thinking, however, of having kids and grand kids.  Once they are born you could say you are done
with them – after all, you have given them into the hands of the way life is –
what else is there??  However, we all
know that is but part of the reality – giving birth to something or someone requires
a lot of care, direct and indirect . . .  as well as trusting the way life is . . . so, for me, this area is
important to the degree that it has to do with pushing me and colleagues to
decide what, of the legacy we intend to “own” to push into the future.

        2. What is the point
(or value) of getting credit for something, like the Social Process Triangles
for example?
I am going to take “getting credit” as meaning asking that people who
use these mention the source – where they ran into it, where it came from.  Like:  “Developed
by staff and colleagues of the Institute of Cultural Affairs and
Ecumenical Institute in 1971.”  To me the
value is 2 fold:  1.  it tells people where the thing in question
came from, not from the sky, not from a guru, but from a particular group of
people.  2.  It gives the possibility to people to connect
to a larger “living legacy” that is connected with that too.  3.  I
don’t know that I understand much the notion of “brand”, but it seems it also
builds a public awareness of a tradition and a body of work.

        3. Why would we want to
object to a person trying to awaken consciousness using any
"property" we own?
Back when I was working for ICA USA we
struggled with that (90’s).  When we
stated that people wanting to use these materials should put a developed by
statement on them and ask permission to use them, it opened the door to some
wonderful conversations.  By and large,
the folks who had run across some artifact and wanted to use it saw some value
(it tickled their “movemental consciousness”, perhaps) in it beyond something
to photocopy and hand out.  In those
conversations we were able to help people clarify what they were trying to do
and develop insight and share experience on what would really work.  So, the conversation actually moved people
more effectively in the direction of awakening consciousness . . .
        4. What is being done
by us now that is in any way at risk by anyone using anything we own?
Too general to answer this one . . . I can outline this from the
perspective of ToP methods, and those of us who are currently willing to “own”
them collectively.  I would come at it
more from the perspective of “opportunity”, however, than “risk” and it has to
do with your term of “movemental consciousness” – the opportunity has to do
with sparking that in people and groups, with giving life to groups and
situations and leaders . . . 
        5. What are we doing
with the Social Process Triangles now? (by the way, how many of us can
explain them?)
To my knowledge, the Jenkins’s published a book on them, Priscilla Wlson
also, and I suppose that some people they have worked with are using them.  Clancy Mann uses them in courses he teaches
in the university on internationa management.  Jean Watts took the idea of the social process triangles and uses that
idea in working with groups to get them to create a “rational framework” out of
their plans that helps them to grasp the dynamics of what they are doing
(movemental consciousness?)  I don’t have
data on what else is going on.  Eunice
Shankland introduced them in our ToP trainers meeting in January and a number
of people seemed intrigued.
        6. Does anyone (the
market), other than ourselves, really want these intellectual
properties(product)?
No data on this.  I would guess
that 99.99% of the people and organizations on the planet have never had the
opportunity to know about us or anything we ever did, so it would be hard to answer
the question.  
        7. Have we not been
trying to give these properties away for 50 years?
We were most effective in “giving these properties away” in getting stuff
out  and being used (beyond those who
were around inventing it)  when we
created programs to do that, and built a framework of support for those
programs and a cash flow and .. and .. and . . .

Waiting for the Old Testament to repeat itself (isn’t there a story
about a guy cleaning out the storeroom in the temple and (re)discovering the
law?) is, of course, a strategy
        8. Why Is this matter
of intellectual property?
I am not sure it is.  
        9. Why is it so
important to get credit for these intellectual properties?
See above
       10. Are there more
important, urgent matters for us?

How is the coming generation to live??
The statements made were:

        1.   I can
assure you that everything we think we own, or claim, is folly in the hands of
people without a Movemental    

Consciousness (if Movemental Consciousness is unclear simply drop the word
"Movemental"), and everyone        

         of us has seen the
reality of what I am saying.
Been reading Ecclesiastes??  I
would say that this “movemental consciousness” is an indicative of the world in
which we live.  We did not invent it for
these times, but gave some form and articulation to it.  I see it popping up many places, in many
people.  
        2.  
Unless a person has such consciousness the event is a silly, abstract, often
boring exercise.
Nope.  Don’t agree, except in the
sense of the author of Ecclesiastes.
        3.   The
intelletual properties are a product of consciousness, not the other way
around.
Chicken and
the egg??  Once created, they can spur
consciousness, I suppose.
        4.   It
is not our intellectual property that create consciousness, but conscious
people using methods that awaken       

     consciousness.
What are you pointing to with “methods”  -- which ones do you have in mind?  Gene Marshall made a similar comment in his reflections on the Mathews
symposium.
        5.  Conscious
people using our intellectual property expand the number of conscious people
and they might get more done        
         than we have thus far.
 Sure.  Didn’t we read a section from Ezekiel or somewhere about bones coming
back together?
Here are 4 more questions to add:

        1.    If
we think consciousness is awakened by using our intellectual properties, what
is our justification for wanting to "own"   

 them, or get credit for them, or control them?
I kind of addressed this above.  I
(we) have to decide what we have that needs contributing to the future and then
contribute it – like that part in Saviors of God where the different spirits
come to drink your blood and you have to decide which ones to put down and
which ones will go beyond you.
        2.   
Are we trying to justify our past by wanting to be recognized for our past
accomplishments?
Yes, among other things.
        3    Why
don't we try giving our intellectual properties away to the entire world rather
than huddling them under our wing?
Good idea, what would that look like?  Writing wikipedia articles??
        4.    Is
money at the base of our concern over intellectual property rights?
 That is why I asked for all those who have
made more than $150,000 from using the triangles to tell us . . . If someone
got rich on this, it wasn’t me, and when I talk with others it turns out it
wasn’t them either.  When doing
interviews, I had very interesting comments from Bob Rafos and John Patterson
re:  their passion in demonstrating the
best of “our” values in their companies . . .
Just asking....and the answers are not "facilitation
questions" directed back, no matter how good the questions may be.

I just want to say, that for my part, our work is not over. 
We had to go through everything we went through to be here in a position to
actually begin our work for
which that past has prepared us. Only now has the term "ECUMENICAL"
become that reality upon which the future of the planet depends. It is now
time for THE ECUMENICAL INSTITUTE: comprehensive global care and a
profound religious mode that quickens and awakens every
traditional mode.  I'm serious about the questions.
 I think that is why I sent that link to the
video – he raises the question of where is the movement . . .
Bill 

   Jim

"If you really want to succeed, then you have to have the big heart, heroic will, tenacity, courage, and commitment to fearlessly engage with the evolutionary process until something profound, mysterious, and extraordinary happens that cannot be undone."  Andrew Cohen

Jim Wiegel
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1  623-936-8671   +1  623-363-3277
jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100228/503120e0/attachment-0001.html>