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

Mon Mar 1 21:20:45 CST 2010

Jim et al,
Thanks, Jim, for you thoughtful responses. I, too, tend to be a little glib as is obvious. I hope to be able to respond in a few days and I trust there may be new ground here and not a re-hash of past conversations.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: James Wiegel 
  To: Order Ecumenical Community 
  Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  OE mailing list
  OE at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100301/75785253/attachment-0001.html>