[session] reflection-3 for Ted

[Richard Moore]

Hi Ted,

I hear that you have a concern about the existing problem statement, that seeking a 'circle society' is too pre-conceived a notion, that everyone's perspective should be included in deciding what happens with DF in society.

I hear that you are passionate about a different problem statement, “How can choice-creating become a valued part of our society?” And you suggest a solution, an organization whose purpose is, "bringing divergent, conflicting points of view together, to engage with one another in a civil manner". I understand better your vision for the organization, which will be pursuing 'bringing-together' opportunities on an ongoing basis, as well as producing commentaries. 

As regards avoiding certain people and groups I hear two things. First, your organization must be non-partisan, including its funding. Second, people who participate in DF sessions  shouldn't see themselves as representatives.

If it's permitted to me, I'd like to push you a little on your organizational concept. You speak of 'organization' and I hear central office, a queue of projects, etc. Would there be any value in a more decentralized approach?

I'd also like to push you a bit on the question of representatives in a DF session. I think everyone here agrees that people need to be their 'authentic selves' if choice creating is going to happen. At the same time, you are speaking of bring divergent groups together, for them to engage in a civil manner. Is it not appropriate for the participants from each group to engage from their group perspective, as it is the groups you wish to harmonize? And is there not a possibility, as the space opens and trust develops, that people will move into their authentic selves, however they started out?

cheers,

richard

___________

Ted Heinz wrote:

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.

In the context of our present society and all the challenging issues, our task is to find ways for choice-creating to work its own magic.  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

[Ted Heinz]

On 9/6/10 12:25 PM, "Richard Moore" <r...@quaylargo.com> wrote:

Hi Ted,

I hear that you have a concern about the existing problem statement, that seeking a 'circle society' is too pre-conceived a notion, that everyone's perspective should be included in deciding what happens with DF in society.

If you are seeking to develop situations that encourage choice-creating then you must do it in a way that is consistent with choice-creating

I hear that you are passionate about a different problem statement, “How can choice-creating become a valued part of our society?” And you suggest a solution, an organization whose purpose is, "bringing divergent, conflicting points of view together, to engage with one another in a civil manner". I understand better your vision for the organization, which will be pursuing 'bringing-together' opportunities on an ongoing basis, as well as producing commentaries.

The idea is to use language that is understandable to the public in general.  I would think that DF and Wisdom Councils would be a central part of the methodology and experiences. But not exclusively because we need to be open to different perspectives and let them grow and develop.  DF and WC would also grow and develop in unforeseen ways because choice-creating would be ongoing.

As regards avoiding certain people and groups I hear two things. First, your organization must be non-partisan, including its funding. Second, people who participate in DF sessions  shouldn't see themselves as representatives.

If it's permitted to me, I'd like to push you a little on your organizational concept. You speak of 'organization' and I hear central office, a queue of projects, etc. Would there be any value in a more decentralized approach?

Well, maybe, at least we are hoping that will happen in the long run.

I'd also like to push you a bit on the question of representatives in a DF session. I think everyone here agrees that people need to be their 'authentic selves' if choice creating is going to happen. At the same time, you are speaking of bring divergent groups together, for them to engage in a civil manner. Is it not appropriate for the participants from each group to engage from their group perspective, as it is the groups you wish to harmonize? And is there not a possibility, as the space opens and trust develops, that people will move into their authentic selves, however they started out?

Yes, I think you are right.  I think getting people from partisan groups to participate in an experience would be a very natural option.  

richard
___________

Ted Heinz wrote: