Re: [WC] Coffee Party's ... Mock U.S. Constitutional Convention

[Richard Moore]

Ted Heinz wrote to WC list:

I would like to comment regarding a feeling that I have had since I first learned of the Wisdom Council and read your book, Jim.  I think that your idea for the constitutional amendment is great and totally plausible.  BUT, I just don’t feel that for you to propose it and promote it is consistent with the spirit of DF.  It feels like you are jumping way ahead of the rest of us and imposing your insight when it is so important that all of us be able to participate in the development of such grand plans.  I feel like it is a preconceived idea distracting from the natural energy of something that could have been discovered in a choice creating process.  And, you never know, other ways for choice creating to become a central part of our society might be discovered and take hold much better than a constitutional amendment.  

I think Ted brings up an important point, regarding "other ways for choice creating to become a central part of our society might be discovered". Recently there was a 'DF on DF' session, which was somewhat along those lines. It seemed to me the perspective there was centered within the DF community, and one of the outcomes was a desire to have more of a 'community of practice'.

I think it might be useful to look from society’s perspective, exploring where choice creating might provide the greatest social benefits, where the need exists for choice creating. Applying choice-creating to such situations may require extra effort, compared to standard 'marketing of services', but if benefits can ultimately be delivered, a path would be opened to a growing relationship between DF and useful social applications.

A Wisdom Council is one society-centered way for DF to work, and we know something about the outcomes that can be expected. It was with a bit of controversy, if I recall, that the space of such 'ways' was extended to include a CIC. In both cases we are leading with 'theory about product', rather than 'need of customer'. 

I think Ted is right, that we need to expand the space of DF 'ways', and a society-centered exploration might bring some new ideas onto the table.

all the best,

richard

[Jim Rough]

I think it might be useful to look from society’s perspective, exploring where choice creating might provide the greatest social benefits, where the need exists for choice creating. 

Hi Richard,

Yes, there are many potential clients within society for Dynamic Facilitation that we have hardly even reached out to.  Some are:

1) Therapy. Some people are starting to use DF in therapy. I think it should be used to help soldiers returning from combat experience, especially those suffering from PTSD. I did a TV interview on DF and Healing Trauma for example at ... http://www.viddler.com/explore/jrough/videos/27/

2) Schools. I'd like to see teachers use it to address their issues, to help students address their personal issues, and as part of the educational experience, where students work together on contemporary problems in society and learning history, sociology and economics, etc. Of course,the Wisdom Council Process should be used among the student body so the teachers can become facilitative rather than directive and Wisdom Council's should be used in the larger parent, teacher, administrator community ... and of course, students should learn DF.

3) Government: Meetings among employees should  Creative Insight Council should be involve mainstream citizens and build the political will to implement thoughtful solutions, the Wisdom Council Process should be set in motion to generate "We the People" and transform who is ultimately in charge, etc.

4) Corporations: What is a better leadership competency than helping people address the most important issues collaboratively and creatively and come up with breakthrough answers? .. 

5) Mediation: ... Every time we do a seminar in a Mediation center at some point the mediators all turn to one another and wonder "why aren't using Dynamic Facilitation instead of the mediation process?" 

6) Hospitals ... The health care process is largely about conversations ... what's the best strategy for the patient? ... how to make hospital procedures optimal? ... how the patient feels and what he/she is going to do?  ... how the family is coping? 

I find myself drawn toward serving Society itself. ... We have all these big issues at once ...  economic collapse, environmental collapse, peak oil, corporate dominance of politics and the media, etc. But there is no client to talk with and to serve, who might get excited the whole-system solution strategy described in "Society's Breakthrough." Governments, philanthropic organizations, and non profit organizations all seem locked into a limited world-view, addressing individual aspects of the problem only, like economics, as though we can get our economy back up on its feet without trashing the environment. How to create or find a client we can serve who is interested in helping facilitate "We the People" into being.

Jim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

---------------------    

Jim Rough

Dynamic Facilitation Associates. | 360-385-7118 | j...@dynamicfacilitation.com | 

See www.DynamicFacilitation.com

Sign up for Public Dynamic Facilitation seminars

[Jim Rough]

On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Ted Heinz wrote:

I experience the following three perspectives with many situations in my life:

-I have the solution worked out; why cant others see what what I see? 
-I have part of the puzzle, let’s see if we can work things out together.
-Nobody has “the answer”, it lies beyond our grasp and we must discover together. 

It seems to me that the third is the perspective that DF releases.  It seems to me that as we promote DF we must also hold this perspective.  As always, the consistency of the messages we project is essential for the real message to be heard.  

The point is discovering together, not just establishing a means and method for doing it. Nor is it the actual solutions to problems so much as the processes we generate together. 

These are my reflections and they probably have some valid truth to them.  Hope they are useful for your own reflections.  Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Yes, DF releases the third perspective, where "nobody has the answer, it lies beyond our grasp and we must discover it together." But paradoxically, it does so through the the first perspective. That's why the Purge is so important. The DF'er does NOT encourage people to adopt the attitude of "discovering together," but first helps them to put aside such politically correct perspectives. He/she asks the person to tell us "THE solution you've already worked out!" It's an invitation to be authentic and it's a promise that they will be OK if they let down their guard and speak truth in this way. Then, out of this blunt advocacy, people shift to an authentic spirit of "discovering together."

Your comment has been very helpful, Ted. Thanks

Jim 

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

the history of this conversation is below if you didn't see it and want to

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

 

On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Ted Heinz wrote:

Thank you, Jim for sharing so frankly how you feel.  

I experience the following three perspectives with many situations in my life:

-I have the solution worked out; why cant others see what what I see?
-I have part of the puzzle, let’s see if we can work things out together.
-Nobody has “the answer”, it lies beyond our grasp and we must discover together.

It seems to me that the third is the perspective that DF releases.  It seems to me that as we promote DF we must also hold this perspective.  As always, the consistency of the messages we project is essential for the real message to be heard.  

The point is discovering together, not just establishing a means and method for doing it. Nor is it the actual solutions to problems so much as the processes we generate together.

These are my reflections and they probably have some valid truth to them.  Hope they are useful for your own reflections.  Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Ted





On 8/31/10 7:19 PM, "Jim Rough" <j...@dynamicfacilitation.com> wrote:

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your comment and suggestion. ... I know what you mean. ...

As you might imagine, this is not the first time this point has been raised. It's a struggle for me as well. I'd rather be facilitating than advocating. But as a participant in life, I am stuck seeing how important the Amendment is for sparking global transformation.  

Remember,  I first started talking about the Amendment in 1993 ( a long time ago! ). Since then I've oscillated from being a strong advocate of the idea to letting go of it and just facilitating.  So it's not like I haven't tried the approach you suggest. In 1995 I convened my own Mock Constitutional Convention in Buffalo NY, where people came to present their ideas. I've written a book, Society's Breakthrough, which explains the idea from different perspectives. And I started a TV show to explain again and again. It continues to amaze me that what seems so clear to me is not yet seen by most others.

There are five social innovations that concern me .... Choice-creating, Dynamic Facilitation, the Wisdom Council Process, the Creative Insight Council, and Society's Breakthrough! (symbolized by the Amendment). I'm an advocate for each one of them ... as well as a facilitator. Whenever people talk about world issues, cultural issues, political issues, etc., Society's Breakthrough comes to mind. It's my purge answer. I think of it as essential ... and as a short cut ... to solving most all the impossible seeming societal issues. I remember fondly the first time I was in a DF'ed meeting and got to purge my viewpoint on this. Wow. It was glorious to finally be and feel heard. But even then people didn't turn on to the idea like I thought they would.

For the past five or six years I haven't talked much about the Amendment at all. I have put it aside and worked on the other four social inventions, seeking to build understanding in that way. But I think society is approaching a perfect storm ... economic collapse, environmental degradation, peak oil, political gridlock, etc. ... so I can hardly keep quiet much longer. Then I heard about the Mock Constitutional Convention and became really excited about bringing forth the Amendment once again.  

Ideally, someone should DF the Mock Constitutional Convention. That would be best. Then I and others would be free to express ourselves freely and be heard, and not feel a sense of risk in suggesting unconventional answers.  Any help to get this to happen  ... from anyone ...would be great.


Jim


On Aug 30, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Ted Heinz wrote:

Hi Jim,
I had not heard of this initiative.  Very encouraging and a great opportunity for awareness of DF and Choice Creating to spread.  Great that you are going!

I would like to comment regarding a feeling that I have had since I first learned of the Wisdom Council and read your book, Jim.  I think that your idea for the constitutional amendment is great and totally plausible.  BUT, I just don’t feel that for you to propose it and promote it is consistent with the spirit of DF.  It feels like you are jumping way ahead of the rest of us and imposing your insight when it is so important that all of us be able to participate in the development of such grand plans.  I feel like it is a preconceived idea distracting from the natural energy of something that could have been discovered in a choice creating process.  And, you never know, other ways for choice creating to become a central part of our society might be discovered and take hold much better than a constitutional amendment.  

Just because I have such a feeling doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t propose the constitutional amendment but somehow I wish that your ideas and my ideas could be exposed to an interchange of different perspectives held in place by a Dynamic Facilitation experience.

You know what I mean?

Ted



On 8/30/10 11:07 AM, "Jim Rough" <j...@dynamicfacilitation.com> wrote:

Hi all,

This may interest only a few people here in the U.S. But maybe not. Maybe others will be interested too.

The Coffee Party (www.coffeepartyusa.com <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com>  <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com> <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/>  ) .... is a fledgling movement and play-on-words to the partisan "Tea Party Movement." From its mission statement, it "gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government." Without an assured opportunity for choice-creating, they probably won't succeed. There are too many people aiming to be disruptive in the political sphere, so I don't think traditional facilitation, dialogue or deliberation will work.

 This movement could be an important springboard for our work. I plan to go to their first annual conference in Louisville, KY this September. Actually, what got me excited about going is that, within the conference is a Mock U.S. Constitutional Convention. As you may remember, my book, "Society's Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People" suggests a specific U.S. Constitutional Amendment. I'm excited about finally having a place to present this idea, supposedly to people who are interested. (Attached is a copy of the latest version of the Amendment.) Also, I started a thread on this idea that I've posted in the Forum at the Coffee Party website. The link is http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/suggested-coffee-party-focus-facilitate-emergence-inclusive-powerful-and-wise-we-people.

I'm hoping that some of you on this list might come to the conference. No one has asked me to dynamically facilitate, nor do they know about DF. But, they sure need what we bring. Or, if you would take a look at the Forum and help me address some of the questions as they arise that would help. Currently, I'm promoting this idea to people who are extremely skeptical and judgmental. But, if there were more of us commenting, maybe we'd gain a toe hold in this slippery slope.

Thanks,

Jim

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wisdom Council Enthusiasts" group.
To post to this group, send email to wisdom...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wisdomcounci...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wisdomcouncil?hl=en.

[Richard Moore]

Jim Rough wrote:

I find myself drawn toward serving Society itself. ... We have all these big issues at once ...  economic collapse, environmental collapse, peak oil, corporate dominance of politics and the media, etc. But there is no client to talk with and to serve, who might get excited the whole-system solution strategy described in "Society's Breakthrough." Governments, philanthropic organizations, and non profit organizations all seem locked into a limited world-view, addressing individual aspects of the problem only, like economics, as though we can get our economy back up on its feet without trashing the environment. 

Hi Jim,

I agree with you about 'serving society itself' being the biggest need for choice-creating. How can society begin addressing the whole-system problems in a holistic way? That is the big question, we both seem to agree.

You have a model, based on large-scale Wisdom Councils, but I've never been able to figure out how that is supposed to work. I understand what you've got in mind up to a point, but then it's like 'something magic happens, the water turns to wine, and everything works out. It would be really helpful if you could spell out the steps, this happens, then this happens, etc. leading up to a situation where the whole-system problems are being addressed holistically.

trying to understand,

richard

[Helma Ton]

Dear Richard,

Thank you so much for your comment on Jim's 'statement'! 
It helped me a lot to grasp more about the way of thinking that 'wants to sustain', but eventually ends up 'blocking'. Blocking the Breakthrough so much desired. By the both of you.
For that is what your comment looks to me now.

In this Society of Collapse, no model will fit. No method will solve the 'big issues'. Not even Jim's. For if it were true that by using DF we -to phrase you- 'could spell out the steps, this happens, then this happens, etc. leading up to a situation where the whole-system problems are being addressed holistically', we would already have saved the World.
Yes we all agree on a holistic approach. But that approach will not follow a methodological way. 'step 1, step 2...'
These are the times to recognize that we live in Chaos and Complexity. No method will work independent from the context.
Only the 'here & now' (the very and only context we really can perceive, in a non-judgementally way), will tell us what to do. Maybe this method, maybe that one.
The basic line is nonetheless crucial: finding yourself drawn toward serving Society itself, or just a special interest.....

Kind regards,

Helma

2010/9/2 Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

--
www.helmaton.nl
www.delimes.nl
www.twitter.com/helmaton

06-22557267

[Patricia Pfost]

Hello All,

In the DF trainings, our emphasis is on the ability of DF to generate a choice-creating space and then on the results or consensus that arise from choice creating. We do not, however, stop and explore that space which we are calling "choice creating." It's something we spend a lot of time (purges) to get to and then the instant we have achieved it we focus on the results (quality of conversation, mutual respect, solutions, etc.) that arise from it. What about "it" itself? It is beginning to dawn on me that the quality of being which we call "choice creating" may be the most valuable product DF offers. (Are you chuckling, Jim? Like, "Finally, she gets it.")

I have been pretty passionate about DF since my first training. I love the consensus, the community, the brilliantly creative solutions that arise. But I realize now, as a result of all your recent posts, that what is most precious to me in a DF'd conversation, whether as a facilitator or as a participant, is being in that choice-creating space. There I am completely free from fixation on my points of view, my reliance on expectations and drive toward outcomes, my willfullness, the weight of my pride, my judgments...my attachment to "my self." The freedom is exhilarating. The sense of being part of the whole is completely satisfying.  

There are many names for this space and they are increasingly being talked about and taught in the world today. In physics there is the "zero-point field," and "uncollapsed wave." Esoteric teachings refer to the "void," the "empty heart space," or "heart space." There is the "bottom of the U" and maybe "the zone" also refers to that space of all possibility.  I'm sure there are many others and I would be very interesting to hear what they are. 

 

We are not only training people how to get to a state of choice creating, we are training them to make that space a habit in their experience, in their bodies, in their awareness, to be able to drop into it at any time, in any moment. Perhaps in our trainings we can spend a little time helping people identify the space and how they feel in it. Encourage them to evoke that space whenever they want to and then for them to observe what happens. I think just one instant of suspension of identification with the individual self has a profound effect. DF prolongs that moment and as a result, allows great goodness to emerge. 

Patricia Pfost

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

[rosal...@igc.org]

Patricia! This is fantastic.... I am very much appreciating your comments, your energy, and your initiative for putting your ialuable insights into words.

 

I'd love to continue talking with you about various places where you may wish to post what you have written below, and/or some edited version of it...

One place that comes to mind right away, is the "theory U" group on Linked In (or maybe it's facebook??)  I will check it out when I get home, as I am not on my home computer right now.

 

Thanks again, and all best wishes,

 

Rosa

[rosal...@igc.org]

Dear Jim, dear Ted...

 

Jim, while I agree with you that DF helps people "arrive naturally" at the third perspective, what I'm hearing Ted say is that when we are talking about DF, we are not necessarily "within" a DF-facilitated space. As a result, people will be better able to hear us, if we are embodying the third perspective, rather than stuck in the first one.

 

Ted, is that close??

 

My own point of view, is that it might be ok to embody either the second or the third perspective... but UNLESS we are ALREADY within a strong DF container, speaking from the first perspective about DF, is the metaphorical equivalent of "shooting ourselves in the foot."

 

With all best wishes,

[Ted Heinz]

Yes, that is the point I am trying to make.  

The Coffee Party (www.coffeepartyusa.com <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com>  <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com> <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/>   <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com> <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/>  <http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/>  ) .... is a fledgling movement and play-on-words to the partisan "Tea Party Movement." From its mission statement, it "gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government." Without an assured opportunity for choice-creating, they probably won't succeed. There are too many people aiming to be disruptive in the political sphere, so I don't think traditional facilitation, dialogue or deliberation will work.

[Daniel Doherty]

Jim's hierarchy of solution finding (from individual to collective)
reminds me of the principles discussed in the book I am reading right
now 'The Power of Collective Wisdom"

Three practices of mindfulness for collective wisdom:
- Create safe spaces for inquiry
- Listening deeply
- Move from individual experts to group expertise
- Ask essential questions

Six facilitative stances foster collective wisdom
- listen deeply
- suspend certainty
- see whole systems and seek diverse persepctives
- respect others and employ group discernment
- welcome all that is arising
- trust in the transcendent

from the Collective Wisdom Initiatiive
http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/papers/CWI_book/about_the_book.htm

---Dan Doherty, Victoria BC
Be not afraid to reach for the unknown solution to the impossible
problem.

[Richard Moore]

And the point I was trying to make is that we can view this list as a DF-facilitated space if we choose to. Jim is clearly ready for purging, not about DF, but about his theory of social transformation... "If you were the king, how would it work?..."

[Richard Moore]

Patricia Pfost wrote:

We are not only training people how to get to a state of choice creating, we are training them to make that space a habit in their experience, in their bodies, in their awareness, to be able to drop into it at any time, in any moment. Perhaps in our trainings we can spend a little time helping people identify the space and how they feel in it. Encourage them to evoke that space whenever they want to and then for them to observe what happens.

These sound like wise words to me. We can apply this advice to ourselves, even now, to 'evoke that space' and observe what happens. Ted opened an important thread, when he expressed 'concerns' about Jim's WC 'solution', for how to best apply choice-creating to society. 

If we were 'in session', I think inviting Jim to purge about how his 'solution' works would be a natural thing to encourage at this point. We could hope for 'breakthroughs' to emerge in our mutual understanding of 'how to apply choice-creating'. At the same time, we would be bringing Jim's thinking 'into the room', 'in process', which responds to Ted's expressed 'concern', about the WC concept having emerged out of 'advocacy' rather than 'good process'. 

cheers,

richard

[Richard Moore]

Hi Helma,

It seems to me that you are expressing a 'concern', that no systematic model could work. You also offer some observations, that having a workable systematic model would already have saved the world, and that useful activism, in the face of chaos, must be centered in here-and-now spontaneity. Those are all good things to have 'on the charts'.

And once again,  if we were 'in session', I think Jim's hand would be going up to expand on his systematic model. Also, in session, you might be invited to expand on your observations.

cheers,

richard

_______

Helma Ton wrote:

Dear Richard,

Thank you so much for your comment on Jim's 'statement'!  
It helped me a lot to grasp more about the way of thinking that 'wants to sustain', but eventually ends up 'blocking'. Blocking the Breakthrough so much desired. By the both of you.
For that is what your comment looks to me now.

In this Society of Collapse, no model will fit. No method will solve the 'big issues'. Not even Jim's. For if it were true that by using DF we -to phrase you- 'could spell out the steps, this happens, then this happens, etc. leading up to a situation where the whole-system problems are being addressed holistically', we would already have saved the World.
Yes we all agree on a holistic approach. But that approach will not follow a methodological way. 'step 1, step 2...' 

These are the times to recognize that we live in Chaos and Complexity. No method will work independent from the context.

Only the 'here & now' (the very and only context we really can perceive, in a non-judgmentally way), will tell us what to do. Maybe this method, maybe that one.

[Ted Heinz]

Richard, I really appreciate your effort to seize the moment and perhaps open a bit of choice creating space.

As I consider the question* the following comes to mind:

I think people generally (I know I am this way) would like to know the final solutions to our problems ... Like a train that we could all get on board and know that the tracks will lead us in the direction we all want to go.  

When we notice this kind of thinking in ourselves, a bit of humility is appropriate... The kind of humility that is ready to affirm the tentative or partial truth that is there, in the “answer” we have discovered but realizes that there is much more to learn.  And, that brings us to a marvelous opportunity: to listen to others.  It is marvelous because, not only are our own lives and understandings enriched by the connection of listening to others, but also their lives and understandings are validated and enriched and this connection begins to allow us to think and grow together.  

I think this is what we are after in our society; we can look for many opportunities to affirm our own understandings while encouraging others by hearing their truths and understandings.  I think this is what I would want: that more and more people feel that they are participating, with others, in a common destiny.

*it might be well for us to clarify again what the “question” is, but my thoughts are moving in another way so I will follow them.


Ted

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Richard, my apologies... I was jumping into the middle of a conversation, responding to Ted's post without having caught up with what went before.

I've been away from these lists for several weeks, and only now catching up... and, I am much appreciating your efforts to have this be a "facilitated space". I think that is something we can all contribute to...

at the same time, I do want to say that my own experience has been that it can be quite challenging to carry over our "df practice" into media other than f2f... of course this is also an opportunity, to explore what additional kinds of structure might be helpful as we attempt to do so.

my own goof here, can be seen as an instance of some of the challenges involved... in listserves, people often jumping into the middle of a conversation without having been present for earlier parts of it... there is no clear beginning and end...  and many conversations may be going on at once.

Still, I want to welcome and fully support your explorations, of how we can use this space as a way to practice DF, not just talk about it!

with all best wishes...

Rosa

[veerle de bock]

Dear Helma, Richard, Jim... and all  It is a good reflection or problem-statement, how to hold a toe in the slippery slope of people who are judgmental and skeptical around the whole DF-way of being. When progressing into choice-creating, I have a tendency to choose for presence.  And I realize like Jim describes our Society, this is also reflected in the hospital, the whole system is locked into a limited worldview, only addressing individual aspects of the problems. DF-space can create a space where magic might happen and I don’t think that there are steps to discern. In a holistic approach everything is already present in great detail and just unfolding when it is the right moment.  As Helma is trying to grasp, there will be moments of confusion and chaos. The method needs to be in relation with the context. All needs to be considered in the moment “now” as it unfolds. In fact this is the only thing we have, this moment.  Greetings  Veerle  --- En date de : Ven 3.9.10, Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com> a écrit :

[veerle de bock]

Dear Patricia,  Patricia, I love the beautiful way you express the richness of that space. I only had one DF seminar and I became completely passionate about it. From my perspective this is the emphasis, creating a choice-creating space, it is heart warming, there we achieve a balance between our will, emotion and reason, there are no attachments indeed, we are simply. As you explain it is related to the “Zero point field” of physics, the void of esoteric teachings and also “Zero Limits” of Ho’oponopono. It is where inspiration can flow freely and no longer be stuck by memories.   It is a space that I want to be my state of reference, where I can return as much as possible, where I can come home. And indeed perceive it in my different dimensions, the physical, my aura, my intention and my essence. Kind regards Veerle   --- En date de : Jeu 2.9.10, Patricia Pfost <pf...@netstep.net> a écrit :

De: Patricia Pfost <pf...@netstep.net> Objet: Re: [DF] Re: [WC] Coffee Party's ... Mock U.S. Constitutional Convention À: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com Cc: wisdom...@googlegroups.com

[Richard Moore]

Hi Helma,

I am hearing that you have concerns around ways of thinking that block breakthroughs, and around the futility of planned-out approaches to transformation. I note also the data you have contributed, that we are living in a time of chaos and complexity.

Am I also hearing the hint of a solution, around paying attention to the hear-and-now context in applying choice-creating, a kind of bottom-up adaptive response to chaos? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I sense a solution idea in what you're saying.

would you like to say more?

richard

________

[Richard Moore]

Hi Patricia,

I am hearing that you are passionate about the space itself, of choice-creating, that the space itself may be the most valuable contribution of DF to society. This space is a spiritual experience for you, a place of 'all possibilities', liberating of attachment to self, and bringing a sense of being part of the whole. You are wanting the space itself to receive more attention in the trainings, that people be encouraged to seek to be in that space as a way of being in the world.

Once again, as with Helma, I sense a solution idea behind your contribution, for moving toward a circle society, something about choice-creating as a transformative experience. 

would you like to say more?

richard

______

[Richard Moore]

Hi Ted,

I am hearing that you are passionate about the power of listening, and that listening is connected to humility, and to an openness to learning. Listening has the power to build connections among people, leading to thinking and growing together. I think I hear you saying that your vision of getting to a circle society has a lot to do with that kind of listening, the building of connections, and a growing sense of participating in our common destiny.

Would you like to say more about how this kind of listening might be encouraged and promulgated?

best wishes,

richard

________

[Richard Moore]

Hi Veerle,

I am hearing that you resonate with Helma's holistic approach, around method emerging from context in 'the now'. 

And again, I am sensing some kind of solution-direction behind your contribution. Something about a new way of looking for choice-creating opportunities, and new places to look.

would you like to say more?

richard

_________

[Ted Heinz]

Richard... You are doing a great job facilitating!

you asked me:

 
Would you like to say more about how this kind of listening might be encouraged and promulgated?

 

I don’t know, but just to begin, I might imagine the creation of an organization something like the following:

The We The People Institute (this name is already taken) The We The People Challenge (this name is already taken), The Common Mind (there is a book by this name) The Peoples’ Mind (this name is already taken), The Peoples’ Thought Project (available) [it would be important to have a well chosen name]   an organization whose purpose is to nurture the capacity for divergent points of view to engage with one another in order to develop shared ideas for the common good.
 
I can imagine many ways that this could be explored, but I would want there to be many highly publicized experiences with DF in many different settings applications.  This organization would reach out to cooperate with any other organizations that have similar goals.  It would avoid, like the plague, association with any organizations that seems to have partisan orientation or any other kind of vested interest.  
 
It would produce television shows, Internet programs, newspaper articles, etc publishing and commenting on the results of diverse experiences carried out toward the organizations stated end: affirming the value of diversity and choice creating.

Ted



and influence one another for the common good..
our society’s capacity emerging from
cooperate and think together for the common good

[Richard Moore]

Hi Ted,

I am hearing that you want people with divergent views to increasingly engage with one another, so that they can develop shared ideas for the common good. As one possible approach to that, you envision an organization devoted to making this happen, and I'm sure you intend that choice-creating methods would have a central role to play.

Would you like to expand just a bit, to clarify a couple of things? Would your organization be doing lots of 'bringing together and facilitating', or would it be doing lots of publicizing about a few dramatic examples? That seemed a bit unclear. And I'm wondering about the juxtaposition of two ideas, (1) to bring all kinds of diversity together, and (2) to avoid like the plague certain groups. How do those two ideas fit together for you?

cheers,

richard

_______

[veerle de bock]

Dear Richard,  thank you for the invitation,  A holistic approach for me refers to the holographic model. This model is how everything is connected, how disease is unfolding, how systems are held in place. Bohm talks about the "dimension of consciousness beyond the concrete world of our ordinary experience". Capra discusses the "web of connectedness which cannot be described in words". Choice-creating is tapping into this huge source and being able bring change. The space for this to occur is than the holographic model, the new way is to open our awareness for it. Little perturbations which can create huge chaos, might than be able to bring us to higher levels of complexity. When I apply this to the process of change that started in the hospital where I work, I feel an invitation to look at the current system as a holographic model, as a being with which I can also communicate. So next to working with the different groups of caregivers in the hospital, the patients, the family members, there is another very important yet maybe the most important partner, the system. It is difficult to put words on it, how do you communicate with a system. kind greetings Veerle  --- En date de : Sam 4.9.10, Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com> a écrit :

[Richard Moore]

Hi Veerle,

I hear you and I think you have clarified very nicely. Permit me to frame the idea in another way to be sure I've understood... Any perturbation we make, wherever we make it, has ripples in the hologram-universe. If we use choice-creating anywhere (eg, hospital), we are indirectly working on the 'big system', and moving us toward a circle society. Even a small (butterfly) perturbation on our part, might lead to a big effect in the system.

Did I get?  If so, I think we could put this down on our 'solution' list, and you might want to give us the language to use.

cheers

richard

[Richard Moore]

Hi Manfred,

I am hearing that you resonate with Ted's 'solution' of an engagement-oriented organization, and that you see an important potential synergy between DF and the Art of Hosting. As you have recently attended the seminar on AoH, would you like to expand a bit on the ideas and practices that might benefit us DF folks?

Our current 'problem statement', as you may have noticed, is "How can choice-creating be employed to transform society into the circle way of being?"

yours,

richard

_________

Manfred wrote:

Great idea, Ted! Thank you for sharing it.

 

I recently attended a very inspiring seminar in Denmark about the Art of Hosting (www.artofhosting.org). I think these people are on a very similar approach. They are not focussed on one single facilitation method but have a very high level of consciousness for the overall process and the different kinds of roles that are needed for fruitful hosting. They put much emphasis on finding the real purpose of something and I think there could be a lot of mutual benefit between AoH- and DF-people to learn from each other.

 

I very much like your idea of setting up "an organization whose purpose is to nurture the capacity for divergent points of view to engage with one another in order to develop shared ideas for the common good."

 

Manfred

 

(As I find this thread very interesting I'm cross posting it in the AoH newsfed.)

[Ted Heinz]

Richard said:
I am hearing that you want people with divergent views to increasingly engage with one another, so that they can develop shared ideas for the common good.

Yes, this is one simple way to describe what DF accomplishes.   

Actually what I am searching for are possible answers to the question: "How can choice-creating be employed to transform society into the circle way of being?". But even more fundamentally: “How can choice-creating become a valued part of our society?”  

I would prefer to leave off the “circle way of being” because that notion sounds a little too preconceived which I think runs counter to cultivating choice-creating situations.  DF is a method (a structured process) for getting people to listen to each other.  This happens largely because they experience their own ideas being heard and fully recognized alongside that of others. In this situation of diverse ideas being fully heard and recognized choice-creating begins to develop among people whose diverse perspective would not otherwise be able to work together.   Because we see tremendous potential for choice-creating we want to take it to society.  But if we try to take it to society with preconceived ideas that go beyond what society already understands I think we are contradicting and undermining what I consider to be the most fundamental principle of choice-creating: everyone’s perspective counts.

So, if we could create an organization which states its purpose as something like: bringing divergent, conflicting points of view together, to engage with one another in a civil manner – then it seems to me the purpose of the organization is fully understandable to society in general [however skeptical of its feasibility they might be initially].  

Richard asks:

Would you like to expand just a bit, to clarify a couple of things? Would your organization be doing lots of 'bringing together and facilitating', or would it be doing lots of publicizing about a few dramatic examples? That seemed a bit unclear.

It seems to me that it would be best if the organization were constantly bringing diverse points of view together and constantly producing results and commentaries.  To give an idea of how I see this, I would compare and contrast it to organizations that now produce opinion poles.  Obviously our organization would produce much more dynamic and meaningful information.

And I'm wondering about the juxtaposition of two ideas, (1) to bring all kinds of diversity together, and (2) to avoid like the plague certain groups. How do those two ideas fit together for you?

I think, as Jim points out, people should not come representing a particular partisan or interest group.   As well, it is important that the organization be credible to all diverse factions of society.  We should not be funded in a way that would associate us with any partisan group.

Ted

[veerle de bock]

Hi Richard,

I appreciate your effort to frame my idea and at the same time I perceive it too much as a theoretical concept. It is true in itself and it is completely frustrating when you try to apply it in an organization. Small perturbation will affect the system and mostly not to reach a higher level. So I included the system as a partner in our communication. In the system which has a holographic model all the possibilities are present, there is in fact a zero point field and anything can arise from there. And at the same time I perceive the system at this moment as a rigid box where it is so frustrating to work in. So I really want to engage with the system as a body of energy. This might sound weird and in a way everything has a soul, an energy content, even a system. You can perceive a system and make contact with it as a kind of body. 

I agree with Ted that choice-creating is a way to achieve change to happen in our society and for me this is in particular in the hospital. And all this is very theoretical too. How comes than that even with all my resources and a passion to go on and on, it doesn’t seem to be created. In the hospital all the participants tend to hold on to their defenses and have huge difficulties to find in themselves their authentic selves.  I am learning to take responsibility for anything that is happening around me in the hospital, which is huge and a job on itself.

I am sorry if I am confusing and confused, and maybe this is yet a new level of chaos and confusion that might finally bring us to a higher level of functioning. 

Greetings

Veerle 

---

From: Richard Moore <r...@quaylargo.com>
To: veerle de bock <veerle...@yahoo.com>
Cc: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com; wisdom...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 6 September, 2010 2:01:51
Subject: [DF] [session] reflection-2 for Veerle

[amelia roache]

in response to Veerle's question: "how do you communicate with a system?"

and,
hearing that the system that you identify with is holographic
and,
how confused, exasperated and determined you are to create change
I would say:
make peace with yourself
and those ripples will happen.

"how do you communicate with a system?"
non-verbally, perhaps.

amelia

--