request for feedback

[Richard Moore]

Greetings,

Here in Ireland our budgets are now being directly determined by the IMF. Not that different really from Greece and Spain, where central-banker technocrats have been appointed heads of state to preside over the liquidation of national assets and the suppression of the populations. I'm eager to get a conversation going in Ireland around the possibility of exiting from the EU, defaulting on the debts, and pursuing a course of sovereign independence.

I'm thinking a good way to get such a conversation started would be by organizing a certain kind of conference, on the topic of, "Would the path of independent sovereignty make sense for Ireland?". The conference would not be about selling the idea of independence, but rather about investigating what independence would mean, what would be the problems and opportunities, and possible outcomes.

'Perhaps there is no alternative, in this globalized world, but to continue on our current path' – it might say in a conference announcement – 'but there can't be any harm in at least investigating one possible alternative'. I think this is a framing that lots of people in Ireland could respond to in these hard-time days, including well-known figures who could be potential speakers. The idea is to make the event as politically neutral as possible.

I've put a lot of thought into the organization and design of such a conference. I'm thinking the first day could be talks with Q&A on a certain set of topics, such as 'about defaults': historical examples of nations that defaulted on their debts, what the justification was, what the outcomes were, etc. Another topic would be 'about currencies', again with historical examples, explaining how a well-managed national currency can enable full-employment and a healthy domestic economy, with a strong export sector, regardless of whether the currency has any value outside the country.

The objective of the first day would be to address the obvious obstacles to independence, and make people aware of the 'state of the art', so to speak, regarding how those obstacles might be addressed, or transformed into opportunities. The second day would be devoted to participatory processes, where people gather together in breakout groups, around the questions and ideas that most interest them. Perhaps in the afternoon a fishbowl aimed at bringing all the threads together. I wouldn't want video cameras at the event, but with lots of photos and good narration a DVD could be produced which could be used to extend the conversation more widely, with viewings around Ireland.

That's a brief summary of my thinking so far, the tip of the iceberg. I'd love to get feedback on this, and also go into more depth with anyone interested. Clearly appropriate process and facilitation would be key to the success of such a conference.

best regards,
richard

[Daniel Doherty]

Hi Richard...you are at it again...thinking deeply.
The global financial situation would appear to be a case of "the
problem cannot be solved by the type of thinking that created
it"...which is a perfect invitation for DF.

It must feel strange to know your economy is being run by a foreign
body...and is that better or worse than the "leaders" that ran the
economy into the ground. Canada got off easier in the big downturn
becase we have conservative fiscal policies (that many loved to hate,
but now are thankful).

My first thought is that you have posed a yes/no question, and a
conference structure that implies a predetermined solution...great to
spark deep inquiry or a polarized debate, but if you do not want to be
perceived a selling one solution, is it the best route to a
enlightened solution (choice-creating)?

Another question might be"How can Ireland prosper?" with sub questions
"How can Ireland prosper in the EU?..."How can Ireland prosper as an
independent economy?"

What are the isues and how could you frame it a joint national
conversation (being the Rebublic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as
part of the UK)...and how to avoid the convesation being trapped in
the ruts of other national conversations.

I am excited by the idea of your conference. Ireland is a small enough
country where a national conversation can get a
foothold...Guinness..DF...Shamrocks...DF...UK/Republic...DF...

In your first day you are thinking about addressing obstacles to
independence. Consider keping it more open so people can express thier
general concerns, then if obstalces to independence (or obstacles to
success in the EU) come up, people feel heard...in DF lingo...they get
to purge. Great ideas on using media and process to extend the
conversation.

Is there an unexpected third way that might emerge from the
conference? not EU, not independence or a combination of both. For
example our community of Victoria BC is experimenting with micro
credit...rather than trying to fix the system or waiting for ti to be
fixedd, this group has created their own economy with in the big one.
There are other examples of the LETS bartering, the black market, etc

My mentor in higher education always said..."In the face of cutbacks,
we prosper!" YOu could run a pre group using appreciative inquiry to
come up with a provikative proposition that becomes the theme or title
of your confrence...one that touches as many hearts and minds as
possible...and get them talking to each other at the water coolers, in
the pubs and accross the paddock walls.

$lainte

---Dan Doherty, Victoria, BC Canada

> --
> 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.
>
>

--
-----
Daniel Doherty, (250) 595-2290

[Raffi Aftandelian]

Richard, thanks for this. 
And I hope you consider posting this more widely, perhaps to the Art of Hosting community, too.

Ditto what Daniel said about the form of the question. As gross as the injustice is, I think it's important to live from appreciative questions-- and i think living appreciatively does also include allowing time for grieving collectively-- which probably is an important first step, too.

I'd add one more thing- I'm unsure of the value of taking any of people's time when they gather face-to-face  to transmit content (teach-ins, education). The time people have at a conference is too valuable to spend just getting up to speed. . I wonder if all content could be made available online and an emphasis made -as one possibility- that people read up/get prepared before coming?

appreciatively,
raffi
26 ноября 2011, 01:57 от Daniel Doherty <d1do...@gmail.com>:

[Simon d'Orsogna]

hi Richard, Dan, Raffi, all

 

agree strongly with the key points that Raffi just made – seem to me to be critical to creating the frame-rim-container. Let go expectation of outcomes, open positive invitation.

 

Can we hold the thought that maybe the technocrats need to be in place for a while too?? if only to provide enough motivation-heat to cook to what is not yet able to imagined – even by progressives ;)

 

Or maybe they will provide some valuable input-structure that contributes in other ways…

 

best

 

Simon

 

Simon d'Orsogna

M 0418 321 254

 

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4037 - Release Date: 11/24/11 19:34:00

[Raffi Aftandelian]

oh...
and how about inviting the technocrats and all the other so-called 1%-ers???  : )

(i've been attempting dialogue with Tea Party folks-- and if anything at least have found that we could lower the decibel level of the conversation and not have name-calling!!!)


26 ноября 2011, 05:33 от "Simon d'Orsogna" <sim...@optusnet.com.au>:

[Veerle De Bock]

Hi Richard, Dan, Raffi, Simon and all....

Richard great ideas and thank you so much for reaching out. 

Raffi great to mention to be careful with the precious time people spend in meetings and I love the idea of including, we will create a much richer panoply of possibilities and choices. 

And there are many ways to apply DF, many more creative and inventive ways to hold space for choice-creating.... Even if it is just reframing discussions into and/and instead of either/or, conflicting ideas into concerns.... Bringing in the "how" as this almost automatically invites shifts and the crucial "listening", the openness to listen to each other.....

I love to hear more....  

love

Veerle 

2011/11/26 Raffi Aftandelian <ra...@bk.ru>

--
Veerle 

[Jim Rough]

Hi Richard ... 

I love your energy for change. And thank you for sharing your tentative plans with this group. And thanks to Dan, Raffi, Veerle, and Simon. To me it boils down to what process of thinking you intend to facilitate. To accomplish the level of change you have in mind, I think you want to facilitate a national conversation that is choice-creating instead of decision-making, which is what you've structured. (See the chart "Three Forms of Democratic Choice Making".

A decision-making approach is alluring because it seems so common sensical. But even with added positive features like dialogue, appreciative inquiry, compassionate listening, deeply conscious people, a facilitator and more, I don't think it works. And even if you could miraculously facilitate a creative conversation that determines an out-of-the-box answer that that group supported, if you use decision-making the solution will be taken into the normal public "decision-making" conversation, which is a power struggle. Then, as monied interests exert their power, the exercise becomes a disempowering experience rather than the intended empowering one.

Ideal is to help everyone stop the car and step outside of the decision-making structures of the system, and to engage in whole-nation choice-creating.  Then all can come together on a new, thoughtful out-of-the-box framing of the issue and near-unanimous solution. This unity and the spirit of choice-creating, seeking what's best for everyone, is trans-partisan. The Wisdom Council (in this case a Creative Insight Council) is designed to do this. Plus, a CIC is easier to organize. 

So that would be my recommendation. Organize a CIC on this issue. It's an exploration by a randomly selected group of twelve or so citizens. In the first two days they might hear different presenters of various solution ideas. (Here's where you get to promote your perspective.) But then the door is closed and they are DF'ed. They'll naturally think outside the box and they'll probably determine something brand new. They'll create a unanimous choice that most everyone would appreciate if you can somehow assure a vast audience to hear them. 

An idea suggested by Jan Maisenbacher to me off line is ...  for anyone interested in pursuing this and helping you design a strategy to meet on a conference call. 

Jim

---------------------    

Jim Rough

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

See www.DynamicFacilitation.com

Sign up for Public Dynamic Facilitation seminars

[Gillian Haley]

Hi Jim and all,

 

This has been an interesting conversation to follow and I thank Richard for initiating it and all of those who contributed their feedback.

 

I was wondering about a CIC in this situation but felt uncomfortable about the "randomly selected" aspect of it. Probably because right now I'm helping a steering committee plan a Future Search for their organization. One of the most important aspects of a FS is deciding who to invite, or "getting the right people in the room." Right people is further defined as getting representatives from the whole system in the room (yes, the scoundrels too as someone already suggested). This means that among all the participants, people from the following categories need to be represented:

 

*Authority to act on their own

*Resources of time, money, access and influence

*Expertise, either social, economic, or technical, in the topic

*Information that others need

*Need to be there because they will be affected by the outcome

 

My thinking is that if you select CIC participants randomly you will certainly have those who "will be affected by the outcome," but what effect will all of their work have if the group is missing people with authority to act and resources such as access and influence? The proposal on the table to bring in presenters or send out information would add the expertise and information elements so that's not as much of a concern.

 

My question is, "How do the ideas coming out of a CIC gain traction in the political arena given the resources available to your typical randomly-selected person?" 

 

I further wonder about hosting a CIC summit with multiple (as many as can be facilitated) groups meeting and coming together at the end of the day to cross-pollinate as they share the day's journey with the larger group.

 

Love to hear the thoughts of others regarding these questions/concerns, as well as other contributions to this post.

 

Gillian

[Simon d'Orsogna]

thanks Gillian!

 

I like that you point to how FS asks us to bring in all of those who AREIN (acronym of all categories represented)

 

and I like how Jim reminds us that this is about choice-creating, getting out of the car.

 

And when I read “They'll create a unanimous choice that most everyone would appreciate if you can somehow assure a vast audience to hear them.” I hear the last clause most loudly “…if you can somehow assure a vast audience to hear them.”

 

Perhaps this part is something that is worthy of further thought, wondering, choice-creation – I have a feeling that this assurance is a key piece. When we might use expressions like ‘magical’ ‘surprising’ ‘unplanned consensus’ and so on that can come off sounding like an over-promise. And to those in power, with responsibility, rewarded for being highly risk averse, untrained in adaptive leadership, and to those with any real influence, it might rightly be suspicious at best, moreso unlikely, timewasting or distracting.

 

I am not advocating ‘better marketing’ in a narrow sense, rather clearer communication from across one side of the chasm to the other. I am reminded of the advice that well meaning older folks might give a newly-engaged young couple about what marriage is really like, or from older parents to those about to have their first child. Words and content without a common worldview or base of meaning.

 

my 2c

 

 

 

Simon d'Orsogna

M 0418 321 254

 

[Jim Rough]

Hi Gillian,

Good to hear from you.  You ask, "How do the ideas coming out of a CIC gain traction in the political arena given the resources available to your typical randomly-selected person?" Thanks for asking this question. It's a paradox ... the Wisdom Council and the CIC are more powerful than other processes because they use random people rather than powerful people. In a similar way they are more powerful because their results are voluntary rather than coercive.

The two options you mention provide good examples. Consider a Future Search Conference and the Creative Insight Council addressing the national debt problem in the U.S. ...

1. President Obama convenes a Future Search Conference. This process is oriented to getting the right people in the room. Elected leaders, government officials and business CEO's are invited to come together to think about the issue of the national debt in a more positive, creative way. The facilitators help people trace back the history of the situation and gain clarity about their ultimate aims. Then change ideas can come from that, perhaps through Open Space Technology or other means. — I'd love to see it happen. But these powerful representatives are not authentic people. They are already pledged to certain positions that cannot be changed. As representatives, they cannot engage in choice-creating so DF isn't that effective and they must vote in the end. Given the pledges of these representatives to not change, I'm not optimistic about new results. ... And since group decisions are likely to be vetted by special interests, I don't think they'll be that exciting in any case.
2. President Obama convenes a Creative Insight Council. Twelve random people are brought together. They hear the presentations of experts and advocates (Here's where Richard gets to promote his leave-the-EU solution.), develop a new, shared perspective and present this perspective and to Congress and the nation. Because this group is both random and unified in its answer, this approach transcends partisanship. And because it's choice-creating the solutions are out of the box, clearly in the public interest, and resonant with the views of the larger population. And ... this is probably most important ... the CIC establishes a new way of talking in the larger public conversation where people are listening more and trying to figure out new answers.

 This power of the CIC to transform the partisan gridlock on the national debt issue arises from the random selection and from choice-creating. It's not about the individuals on the Council. Only a unified random group can establish a legitimate voice of the "Public Interest" ... perhaps for the first time in history ... which can upset the power struggle among Special Interests.  The Office of Future Related Issues in Vorarlberg is demonstrating that this works in cities throughout Western Austria and other parts of Central Europe.  Elected officials there are using the CIC to enhance their ability to think more creatively and authenticly. These experiments don't have a lot of citizen awareness yet, but still create new choices.  

So CIC results do "gain traction in the political arena" ... and they are more powerful than just that. They offer the prospect of transforming the political arena entirely, where "We the People" take responsibility for the system and our collective choices.

  Jim

P.S. ... Simon,  my good friend Don Miller has been telling me for years to not use the word "unanimous" because it conjures up the specter of over-promising. So in this response to Gillian I'm trying out the word "unified". I'm interested to know if you think this is better.

[Tom Atlee]

Your description of a Future Search Conference doesn't sound like a future search to me, Jim.  You might want to read up on it, or have a long, curious conversation with a practitioner of both FS and DF (like Kenoli).  You might be surprised.  Coheartedly, Tom

[Jim Rough]

Hi Tom,

I contacted Kenoli and am looking forward to learning more about his use of Future Search in democratic settings. The FS events I've attended have been within hierarchical settings. ... In the spirit of DF, I suggested two Solution possibilities for "how to break out of the national debt crisis." A third solution possibility might be Richard's developing strategy (at least for Ireland),

• 3) Convene a politically neutral conference on a specific topic like"Would the path of independent sovereignty make sense for Ireland?" with presentations from well-known people, breakout groups, and a fishbowl process; using DF and Open Space without naming them; preceding and following each talk panel with a question and issue period; and tying this conversation into the already burgeoning national conversation.

  I'm wondering ... what strategy would you suggest? ... or maybe others have strategies to contribute? ... Gillian, maybe you could suggest a strategy that's more in line with Future Search?

Jim

[John Spady]

Hello Jim and Richard,

Just a note to remind the list here that I have helped Jim demonstrate a process to engage a wider community in the results of a CIC/WC with our Community Forums model… our model takes the results of a CIC/WC (the near-unanimous solution developed during the DF process) and uses that as input to the Community Forums process to engage a larger community in networked  small-group conversation (both online and offline) around each of the statements coming out of the CIC/WC.  This process was demonstrated during the "WC #2: Second Victoria Wisdom Council" and is documented here and again here with an early version of our community Opinionnaire® survey (we have improved our techniques since this example.)

Since the demonstration in Vancouver, we have gone on to develop a similar community outreach engagement strategy with the Countywide Community Forums of King County (in the greater Seattle area.) For 4 years, starting in 2008, we have developed a model for improving our civic infrastructure for public engagement around important regional issues. I contend that something similar to this process can quickly (and inexpensively) be developed for any organization, government (local/regional/national), or NGO, that is interested in using the results of a CIC/WC to engage a larger community in measurable ways.

Thanks for following the links in this message and allowing me a moment to contribute to this ongoing conversation. 

I subscribe to the digest of this group so please contact me directly if you have any questions.

Regards to all,

John Spady

Seattle

jspady {AT} mac {DOT} com

[Tom Atlee]

Dear John,

I am interested in seeing documentation of this process or at least a good description of what was done, how it unfolded, what resulted, etc.  I'm familiar with your model, but was looking forward to further details about how this was done with Victoria's second WC, so I could get a better picture of its functioning and usefulness.  I followed the two links you gave and found no such report.  Does such a report exist?  Can you provide a direct link?

Thanks.

Coheartedly,

Tom

[Gillian Haley]

Hi Jim, Richard and all,

 

My experience tells me that WCs and CICs are powerful because they provide a way to dive into disagreement and hopelessness and untangle the treasures caught there - not because of the randomly selected people. I think something is missing when those with power aren't represented, just as something is missing when the powerful meet without including the voice of random people.

 

Future Search is powerful because it brings the whole system - higher-ups and average citizens - into the room, building common ground through building new understanding between previously disconnected parts of the system. Enlightened solutions emerge from the newly connected system, but only the common ground is acted upon. Coming together toward the end of the conference to identify the common ground naturally ties things together and gets everyone in the same conversation. Anything which causes disagreement is put on a 'save for later' list and given to the organizers at the end.

 

I think a brilliant strategy would be to host a Future Search on creating a vital future for Ireland. The FS would lead you through looking at where you've come from, what the issues you're facing are, and how you, as a whole system, want to respond in the context of the newly gained perspective as seen from all sides. One stakeholder group could be those who favor independence for Ireland to ensure that is part of the conversation. The initiatives which emerge from the conference could be engaged right away. Then the 'save for later' list (issues that caused disagreement within the Future Search) could be DFed with proponents and opponents from all sides. It sounds like the issue of becoming independent from the EU would likely end up on this list, possibly with other as yet unconsidered ideas. But imagine diving into such a topic knowing that a bunch of other people are already moving forward with plans to create a more vital future by addressing other issues you also care about.

 

An approach like this would open up the conversation, yet maintain some control through who is invited to represent each stakeholder group. The presentations would naturally occur between the FS and DF giving the advantage of knowing more exactly what information needs to be presented. It gets the conversation going starting from a proposition of talking about independence, and leaves open the possibility that something even better could emerge from all of these people gathered together.

 

I hope these are useful ideas for Richard; it's been great inspiration and learning for me reading and building on everyone's ideas. Even gives rise to hope that some collective undertaking can address the situation in the US! 

[Richard Moore]

It's possible that the wolf and the lamb might agree about some things, but not about the wolf's diet.

[Gillian Haley]

I didn't realize the situation was framed that way, Richard. I was imagining that there were still some politicians and bankers with principles within the corrupt system. Maybe it's possible to fight against wolves, but I think more effective for people to fight the system that makes people behave like wolves. It's an approach I learned and adopted while doing my thesis research on how Nelson Mandela brought about transformation in South Africa. 

 

But you are taking action and that is the best of all. I will take a lesson from that and see about applying my thoughts to a system with which I'm more familiar.

[Jim Rough]

Thanks, Gillian!  ... I find it really helpful to read and consider the approach you've outlined.  I think it would be a tremendous leap forward.

I think my remarks have been confusing however. Let me clarify how DF, the WC and the CIC relate to this randomness vs. powerful people idea. Somehow I've given the impression that in the Wisdom Council ... "those with power aren't represented." That's not true. The powerful are participants in all three. It's just how they participate that is different, and toward what end.

IMPROVING THE SYSTEM:

1) DF'ing ... Of course, DF'ing should be used in the meetings, especially for the difficult "save for later" issues as you've described. I have no doubt DF can achieve unity even among the wolf and the lamb ... and even when they consider the diet of the wolf. (That's a great metaphor, Richard). 

2) The CIC (and Individual Wisdom Councils) ... Usually the CIC is purely random but not necessarily. The CIC is a special case of the Wisdom Council Process. It doesn't meet all twelve principles, including the one which requires pure randomness. A CIC can be used with a set of selected people and a set of random people. I think it's best used with random people, however, because a CIC is in no position to "make the decisions" while a Future Search Conference is. The CIC "creates choices" in order to elevate the nature of the public conversation. It's aimed at facilitating a conversation throughout the system, where collective "decisions" get made. 

Both Future Search and the CIC are about "bringing the whole system into the room." In the case of Future Search we're talking about a literal room and a symbolic "whole system." With the CIC we're talking about a symbolic room but a literal "whole system." The idea with the CIC is to include everyone, powerful people, experts, and elected officials, in the conversation. One key difference though ... with Future Search we ask the powerful people into the room because of their positions of power. With the CIC we seek a choice-creating conversation where people drop their roles and positions of power in order to engage one another authentically. Afterwards they can reassume their roles, knowing the shared perspective of all. 

TRANSFORMING THE SYSTEM

3) The Wisdom Council Process ...  I don't think our system can be improved enough for our society to become sustainable. I think we need to transform our collective thinking process beyond decision-making to choice-creating. The Wisdom Council makes this possible and accessible at the national and global levels. There are twelve principles to a Wisdom Council, one of which requires that the Council be a pure random selection of people. This allows the creation of a legitimate symbol of "We the People," and the prospect of stimulating a real-life, powerful "We the People into existence, all people acting intelligently together. Again powerful people are part of the conversation but not in their roles. But this time it's an ongoing process. It is a structural change that, to a large extent, is the needed deep systems change.

When I make these points about the need to transform the System and the Wisdom Council Process as a simple way to do it people often start to question or resist this perspective.  But I think there is growing awareness that there is fundamentally something wrong with our System and a growing desperation to find an answer ... so I'm getting bolder in talking about it.

I think it would be great to hold the Future Search Conference just as you say. The points I'm making about DF, the CIC and the WC process are complementary to that.  Thanks again for your vision.

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.

[Richard Moore]

I wrote-----

It's possible that the wolf and the lamb might agree about some
things, but not about the wolf's diet.

Gillian Haley wrote:

I didn't realize the situation was framed that way, Richard. I was imagining that there were still some politicians and bankers with principles within the corrupt system. Maybe it's possible to fight against wolves, but I think more effective for people to fight the system that makes people behave like wolves. It's an approach I learned and adopted while doing my thesis research on how Nelson Mandela brought about transformation in South Africa. 

Hi Gillian,

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. My analysis of the current situation is that Ireland is doomed unless it breaks free and seeks self-sufficiency. There are no politicians or bankers in Ireland who would consider such an idea. As Dan Doherty suggests, I'm seeking to help spark a parallel conversation in civil society.

cheers,

richard

__________

[Gillian Haley]

Thanks for taking time to explain more in depth, Jim. I understand that choice-creating is a unique aspect of any of the DF, CIC and WC processes. It sounds like you are making a  distinction between 'making' a decision (traditional process) and a choice 'arising' from the group (a DFed process)? I've experience choice arising during DF and very much appreciate how unique that is. I think that's when the treasure becomes untangled and falls out of the mess of disagreement. Also, I hadn't realized that a Creative Insight Counsel design can be to intentionally choose the invitees.   

 

I'm still left wondering where the bridge is that will connect the WC process (or some other effective transformational process) to the broken system that's currently in control. Perhaps the best use of any DFed process is in the way Richard is thinking - to step aside from the broken system and create a parallel conversation (process even?) that is more effective and sustainable for all.  

 

One paragraph (pasted below), I didn't understand. I hope some day you have the opportunity to participate in an authentic Future Search because our understandings are so different now that sharing and comparing ideas is difficult. I was fortunate enough to attended a DF weekend led by you and one led by Rosa so, though I don't have all of the DF theory down, I do have the authentic experience to refer to. In a FS all voices are equal and the people invited represent viewpoints present in the various stakeholder groups, which are chosen by the criteria that they are the most interdependent parts of the system you're wanting to affect. That's the whole system part of the design. Then people with influence, power and resources are needed from all stakeholder groups to get stuff to happen as a result of all the work the group will do. (Other qualities besides power, etc. are needed too.) To me, this is different than how you are talking about it, but in the end I do agree that FS and DF/WC/CIC are complimentary processes.  

 

Part of your message I didn't understand: Both Future Search and the CIC are about "bringing the whole system into the room." In the case of Future Search we're talking about a literal room and a symbolic "whole system." With the CIC we're talking about a symbolic room but a literal "whole system." The idea with the CIC is to include everyone, powerful people, experts, and elected officials, in the conversation. One key difference though ... with Future Search we ask the powerful people into the room because of their positions of power. With the CIC we seek a choice-creating conversation where people drop their roles and positions of power in order to engage one another authentically.

 

Appreciate the great learning and glad to hear you are getting bolder in talking about your knowledge and vision.

 

Gillian

From: Jim Rough

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:35 AM

To: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com

Cc: wisdom...@googlegroups.com

[Gillian Haley]

I really appreciate this additional information, Richard. In creating a parallel conversation, it makes sense to me to step aside from the leaders of the status quo in order to start something new that works better.

 

I Googled Dan Doherty to try and find out more about his ideas, but only came up with a bunch of different people with this name, none of whom were authors. Ultimately the best solution may be to create something new on the side as the old system dies, and it's an idea that greatly interests me. If you or others have sources for ideas and information about this idea that you'd be willing to pass on, it would be helpful and be put to good use.

 

Best wishes,

Gillian

From: Richard Moore

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:09 AM

To: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com

[Simon d'Orsogna]

“If you or others have sources for ideas and information about this idea…”

 

Peggy Holman wrote a book last year – Engaging Emergence

 

seems to be in this terrain of compassionate disruption, holding intention, asking open questions, being unattached to outcomes and so on

 

worth a peep – imo

 

S

 

Simon d'Orsogna

M 0418 321 254

 

---

From: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gillian Haley

Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 6:48 AM
To: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4047 - Release Date: 11/29/11 19:34:00

[Daniel Doherty]

Gillian, for more on our DF work in Victoria, BC, look to
www.wisedemocracyvictoria.org

Richard, "You said, "There are no politicians or bankers in Ireland

who would consider
such an idea."

I wonder what I would hear if I sat down with bankers & politicians one
at a time over a pint and had a probing DF conversation (and promise
not to use their answer against them): "What are your
concerns? and "If you had the capability, how would YOU solve that?"

---Dan

--

[Jim Rough]

Gillian, Thanks for following up. I really appreciate it. I'll address the first of your questions now and the second in a later email. ...It makes me nervous to answer these questions because the issues are so important ... and because your interest opens a door to communicating that is rarely there.

You ask. "I'm still left wondering where the bridge is that will connect the WC process (or some other effective transformational process) to the broken system that's currently in control. " ... I think the confusion is in different levels of the word "system." There are two levels of System in particular that we are talking about here ...

1. The system-in-charge. In the United States a key component of this system-in-charge is the U.S. Constitution. This document written in 1787 structures how we talk and think and how we make collective decisions. It sets up that we will use "decision-making" in the form of voting, for example, and representatives, and have measurable bottom-lines. We will make coercive laws. Basically people will compete within the laws and the system will be left alone, in charge of itself. Like a game of Monopoly at the very end, now there are just a few winners who own Boardwalk, Marvin Gardens, Congress, the laws, the Courts, and the economy, and they use their power to maintain the illusion that this is the best that's possible. 
   
   
2. The "meta-system." This is the space outside of that socio-political-economic system, or any mechanical system, where we take "time out" to check in and ask ourselves, "How is this game-like system working for us? ... Do we like where we are headed? ... Do we need to modify things? ... or even  ... Do we want to try something else?" The Wisdom Council Process sets up this We the People conversation. ... In my book, Society's Breakthrough, I describe three different meta-system possibilities: Triangle, Box and Circle. Triangle is where we have a King or some hierarchy that is ultimately in charge. Box is we set up a social contract to be in charge. Circle is where we take ongoing "times out" to talk at the level of choice-creating. 

The Wisdom Council Process (all twelve steps) is the only way I know to facilitate all of us to come together as an empowered "We the People," and to shift the system from Box to Circle. Just having the conversation means we are in a Circle system. Once we come together as an empowered "We the People" then we can fix the Box, not to have it take over again, but to help us manage ourselves. This is about adding a We the People conversation to our existing system ... and sparking a new kind of thinking process where we can realistically implement some of the many great ideas already out there  ...  like getting rid of the debt-based money system; getting money out of politics; eliminating corporate personhood; election reform, etc. 

Key to remember in seeking to understand how this simple idea could possibly work is to remember the nature of choice-creating. In choice-creating people drop their roles. They talk as people. So in a sense this strategy doesn't include the powerful CEO's of corporations or elected officials. It does, of course, include them but as people. They drop their roles and talk at a much deeper, more human level. 

I hope this makes sense.  Most people don't know about the possibility of shifting to the Circle. They know about the Box and the Triangle. They know they don't want the Triangle and they are beginning to "get" that there are fundamental problems with the Box. This new awareness of the limits of our system, I hope, opens the door to ever bigger experiments with Circle processes. 

Jim

[Tom Atlee]

Jim:

If you ever need a model outside of your own to describe what you call  here the "meta-system", you might consider Donella Meadows' Twelve Leverage Points to Intervene in a System 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

See especially point 1:

1. Power to transcend paradigms

Transcending paradigms may go beyond challenging fundamental assumptions, into the realm of changing the values and priorities that lead to the assumptions, and being able to choose among value sets at will.

Just thinkin'....

tom

[Jim Rough]

Hi Gillian,

As I review your other issue. Maybe you could ask a question. 

On Dec 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Gillian Haley wrote:

Part of your message I didn't understand: Both Future Search and the CIC are about "bringing the whole system into the room." In the case of Future Search we're talking about a literal room and a symbolic "whole system." With the CIC we're talking about a symbolic room but a literal "whole system." The idea with the CIC is to include everyone, powerful people, experts, and elected officials, in the conversation. One key difference though ... with Future Search we ask the powerful people into the room because of their positions of power. With the CIC we seek a choice-creating conversation where people drop their roles and positions of power in order to engage one another authentically.

---------------------    

Jim Rough

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

[RosaZ]

Hello Richard, hello all...

I am glad to see how much conversation has been sparked by your
original post, Richard...

and, back to your original design... I really like it!

I am not sure whether you need to modify your original question. In
general, I tend to prefer open-ended questions...
yet the question as you have framed it, "Would the path of independent

sovereignty make sense for Ireland?"

feels like an open invitation to people with many different
perspectives...

I was playing around a bit with how you might tweak it, if you wanted
to avoid a yes/no question...
I came up with "What might independent sovereignty for Ireland look
like? What might be the problems, opportunities, and feasibility
thereof?"
yet in this case, something might be lost by such a framing. I trust
your own sense of your local situation...

more comments below:

> 'Perhaps there is no alternative, in this globalized world, but to continue on our current path' – it might say in a conference announcement – 'but there can't be any harm in at least investigating one possible alternative'. I think this is a framing that lots of people in Ireland could respond to in these hard-time days, including well-known figures who could be potential speakers. The idea is to make the event as politically neutral as possible.
>
> I've put a lot of thought into the organization and design of such a conference. I'm thinking the first day could be talks with Q&A on a certain set of topics, such as 'about defaults': historical examples of nations that defaulted on their debts, what the justification was, what the outcomes were, etc. Another topic would be 'about currencies', again with historical examples, explaining how a well-managed national currency can enable full-employment and a healthy domestic economy, with a strong export sector, regardless of whether the currency has any value outside the country.
>
> The objective of the first day would be to address the obvious obstacles to independence, and make people aware of the 'state of the art', so to speak, regarding how those obstacles might be addressed, or transformed into opportunities. The second day would be devoted to participatory processes, where people gather together in breakout groups, around the questions and ideas that most interest them. Perhaps in the afternoon a fishbowl aimed at bringing all the threads together. I wouldn't want video cameras at the event, but with lots of photos and good narration a DVD could be produced which could be used to extend the conversation more widely, with viewings around Ireland.
>
> That's a brief summary of my thinking so far, the tip of the iceberg. I'd love to get feedback on this, and also go into more depth with anyone interested. Clearly appropriate process and facilitation would be key to the success of such a conference.
>

With regard to process design, it sounds to me like on the first day,
in between the presentations, you might use some World Cafe to give
people a chance to converse in small groups, about the various topics
you are presenting. I also think that Q&A is very powerful when it's
DF'd -- for that matter, presentations can be DF'd as well: it tends
to keep them more succint and to the point, when someone is
reflecting, summarizing, and writing down main points. Another great
place for DF-style listening, is in the whole-group harvesting that
follows the rounds of the World Cafe. Yet those three are are optional
enhancements... you could do a "straight" presentation and Q&A, along
with some conventional rounds of World Cafe.

The second day sounds to me like a natural for Open Space. As far as
bringing it together though, I hesitate to have something like a
fishbowl following an Open Space, as it could feel too constricting
after the space has been opened. The traditional form of "bringing
threads together" in Open Space is to come back in a whole circle
(this could be a very large circle, if there are many people
present...) and invite anyone who wishes to do so, to offer any
comments, insights, or commitments. This is an opportunity for people
speak about what has been moving for them... anything new they have
learned, anything that has deepened their passion, and/or anything
they are wanting to take responsibility for, moving forward. If it is
a large group, not everyone will choose to speak... yet it is a
powerful experience nonetheless, to have the opportunity to do so.

Also, as part of the Open Space, you would be inviting people in the
small group conversations to "harvest' the highlights of the
conversation, into a document that would later be shared with
everyone. One possibility for integrating DF, if you had a number of
trained facilitators, is that someone might offer to host a
facilitated conversation on a particular topic. Ideally this would be
done as a team... a "host" who "owns" the problem or the topic, and a
facilitator who will be facilitating that particular session.

This is possible as within the Open Space format, a great diversity of
small-group formats is encouraged. For example, someone could
conceivably offer to present a "lecture followed by q&a" as their Open
Space small-group session. Or, a facilitated conversation. Or, an
unfacilitated circle. Or, a structured workshop. etc. etc. etc.

Of course, the same guidelines would still apply, of "Law of Two
Feet", etc. in that if participants did not want to stay, they would
be welcome to leave and go to another session. HOWEVER, I have seen
very successful small groups take place, where the announcement was
made during the marketplace that, given the nature of the topic, no
new participants would be admitted in, mid-session. I would tend to
lean toward following that format, whenever a small group is using DF,
as otherwise it tends to dilute the value of the facilitated space....
of course, given the presence of the notes in DF, you always have the
possibility of stopping and filling someone in, whenever someone new
joins the small group... yet if more than one or two people were to do
so, having to spiral around to the beginning of the conversation again
and again would effectively keep the group from going deeper.

This may all be academic, as you may not have a stable of DF
practitioners on hand, to facilitate some of the OS small groups... In
any case, just having a straight OS would still be a very valuable
experience, and I believe it would accomplish your objectives of
getting the conversation started, in a powerful way....

with all best wishes,

Rosa

[Gillian Haley]

Ah, the embarrassment of joining a group when not acquainted with all of the
members. Thanks for speaking up, Dan. Maybe there will be a book about all
the great stuff going on with DF in Victoria. I'm taking a closer look at
the site and getting a lot out of it.

I think you've got something there with talking over a pint with the
politicians and bankers. How do you get them to join you though?

Gillian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Doherty" <d1do...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:53 PM
To: <dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DF] Re: didn't realize the situation was framed that way

[Gillian Haley]

The paragraph I wrote which preceded this cut and pasted part of your message wasn't so much a question, Jim, as a frustration about how different our understandings are about Future Search. The result is when you compare FS to DF I get confused because the way you are talking about FS is not FS as I know it (which is pretty much by the book since I'm facilitating a group of planners at the moment).

 

Thank you for your other detailed reply. I remember the circle, triangle and square (box) because when you first talked about them I sensed a connection to spiral dynamics and the different value systems it maps. The distinction you made between the system-in-charge and the meta-system helps me understand what you mean when you say system.

 

Following various links group members have posted, I see that at a practical level, one way CICs and WCs bridge to the local political system is through an openness on the part of the mayor or city council. It sounds like you are focused on the value of choice-creating processes to transform the existing system-in-charge in this manner.

 

When you write - Most people don't know about the possibility of shifting to the Circle. They know about the Box and the Triangle. They know they don't want the Triangle and they are beginning to "get" that there are fundamental problems with the Box. This new awareness of the limits of our system, I hope, opens the door to ever bigger experiments with Circle processes. - are you thinking of ideas like Richard's (which I see as related to Bruce and Veerle's posts) about creating a parallel conversation in civil society which has no bridge to the system-in-charge, and which is not working with the old system to transform it? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about forgetting the old box/square altogether and using choice-creating processes to create something new that imagines what could be if we worked to manifest our hopes and what brings us joy instead of to fix what is broken. Not that it's a case of either/or; both approaches seem necessary in order to keep the old alive long enough for the new to emerge. 

 

Is there another shape that might give structure besides the box/square? Say the star, for example, and what kind of society might that look like? If we walk away from the box maybe a new structure like this can start to grow. Maybe it already is growing. That's a lot of wondering, and I think in pictures which doesn't work for everyone. Please don't feel obligated to answer if the questions don't seem productive to you.

 

Gillian

From: Jim Rough

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:33 PM

To: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [DF] Re: DFed processes and Future Search

[Gillian Haley]

Just discovered this post from Dan in my spam folder along with a few of Tom's.

Now I understand what Richard was talking about a few days ago when he referred to Dan's ideas.

Glad to know about the transition network; looks like another good resource for inspiration.

 

Below this I expanded upon my earlier thought about fighting systems, because I didn't say enough if it sounded like I'm for fighting a noble fight.

 

As I understand it, when one fights a system the system fights back
because it is designed to protect itself (observe the
establishment/corporate response to the Occupy movement). Gillan
speaks of a nobel fight, but is that the best use of our resources?
Richard's statement speaks to me of accepting the truth of the
situation. But then what action to take...

One principle of the Wisdom Council is to create a parallel
converstion that informs the power structure (rather than attacking
it), and has the potential to become a new manstream way of doing
things...not requiring permission of the system.

Research I've read indicates that confrontation breeds entrenchment,
but creating a new, better idea has the potential to supercede the old
way ...and is so much more rewarding to engage in. Look at what the
transtion network is doing...grassroots conversations and actions,
acting as if we are in a post-oil economy...so when the criisi comes,
the alternative is already available...way more fun that trying to
fight the oil companies.  At the same time, protest strategies can
still help, such as seems to be in recent public action against the XL
pipeline. I wonder what really motivated Obama to delay it...protests
or the national conversation...or...?

  

I'm for creating possibilities for new relationships with people because I think that's the only way transformation can happen. If we create an us and them situation by treating a whole group of people as if they're the bad ones and we are trying to save ourselves from them, we perpetuate the drama triangle of the villain the victim and the hero, which Veerle wrote about in her post: And if we really want the old structures to shift, we need to move on to higher levels of functioning of awareness, the first invitation is than to stay centered and out of the drama triangle. The way I know how to do this is to cultivate healthy relationships between people, and focus distrust, abhorrence, change efforts, etc. toward the system. Some chose to focus on changing (or fighting) the old system, and some chose to focus on creating an entirely new system.  

 

It's worth mentioning that the book Power and Love, by Adam Kahane, is an indispensible guide for cultivating healthy interpersonal connections. Respecting others while maintaining healthy boundaries of self-respect as connections are built among people with varying scruples isn't easy to do. Yet scruples can't transform either if they don't have a chance to develop through new, healthier interactions.  

 

When Jim refers to the power of people dropping their roles and talking as people: Key to remember in seeking to understand how this simple idea could possibly work is to remember the nature of choice-creating. In choice-creating people drop their roles. They talk as people. that happens due to the power of shifting the system of influence. People who belong to an unpopular system (like the corporate or banking systems) can only transform if they are invited into a different system (like the community or interpersonal systems) to talk as one neighbor to another, or one human being to another. Seems like a mean trick to cast someone in the role of the villain and then exclude them from an opportunity to engage with a system that would allow them to play a more likeable role, and that's a dynamic that frequently plays out in the media. I prefer to cast the system as the villain and leave people free to chose a different role, which they can only do in relation to me if I'm open to the possibility of engaging with them on a different level.

 

When protesters protest outside banks, are they angry with the people inside or the banking system? How do protesters behave toward the bankers inside? It seems to me that for many people 'bank' equals the people who work in the bank, otherwise they don't know where to direct their anger. It seems to me that blowback comes from this misapplied anger which is taken personally by people inside the system. The dynamic set up destroys the possibility of talking as one person to another, relationships are destroyed, and people become cemented in their roles. That's why I like the idea of going out for a pint (or sharing a meal) with those on the opposite side of the fence. New relationships, new understandings and new possibilities can result. 

 

Systems are just interactions between people in different contexts governed by the spoken and unspoken rules of the context. Systems can't fight back. People inside the systems fight back when they feel attacked.    

 

I believe the place to focus our resources in order to create transformation is on building relationships - whether we create a parallel process and remain open to others from the old way eventually joining us in a new relationship, or whether we find common ground from which to connect to others as we seek to transform what's broken. That's why I'm focused on where the bridges are in WCs and CICs. The part about fighting systems is just guidance about where to direct the fight when it rises up within.

  

Thank you to all for sharing food for thought which feeds understanding and wise action, and for your patience as I figure things out technically and socially. 

 

Gillian 

 

[Richard Moore]

Thanks Rosa. I've printed out your email and will be using it in our planning process. 

-r

______

[Jim Rough]

Hi Gillian,

You asked for an image to represent the kind of conversation needed in society. Of course, I use the Triangle, Box, Circle to represent the three meta-systems. (The image below was created by Nancy Margules).

[Denise Alvarez]

hello Jim, hello Gillian

Thank you Jim to add visual help to the words, (box, triangle and
circle). I have been pondering about the use of images, the help,
chance and limitation they offer. What is lacking for me in the three
forms is space. All of them represent a flat space. I wonder what
thoughtforms would arise if we think of the circle as three
dimensional space, as a start. Just pondering. As a have been working
with the Feldenkrais Methode for many years i know how powerful the
effect of images can be of our self use. And how disorganised we use
our capacity to move if we have uncorrect images.

Denise

> --
> 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
> .
>

> A more accurate image is the one I use in the seminar ... where
> there is a Box with a Circle inside of it transforming to a Circle
> with a Box inside.
>
> <PastedGraphic-6.pdf><PastedGraphic-2.pdf>
>
> This image recognizes that both Box and Circle processes are present
> in both meta-systems. It's just a matter of which one is dominant.
> As long as Box processes remain dominant, our society doesn't have
> much of a future, no matter how many circles we make inside the Box
> or how big we make them. It's imperative. We must shift to the
> Circle(with Box inside).
>
> I have another image I use to show how the transformation can
> happen ... little circles starting on the inside of the Box but
> coming outside of it, and then were these little circles develop
> into one large circle that encompasses the Box. Key is that the
> little circles are choice-creating.
> <PastedGraphic-4.pdf>
>
> This subtle form of transformation is how I think it can happen. I
> see Future Search, Richard's strategy, the CIC, and Deliberative
> Democracy as being circles within the Box, establishing independent
> parallel conversations. These are deeply beneficial, within either a
> Box or a Circle meta-system, but they don't transform the system.
> They can't spark a coming together of all the people into one shared
> perspective, where "We the People" take charge of the system. The
> Wisdom Council process is seemingly like that too, seemingly a
> circle within the Box, but in time a living "We the People" begins
> to emerge and take charge.
>
> Richard points out that this idea is largely theoretical. And he
> sees some experiments as having failed. But, in my mind each
> previous experiment has confirmed the theory. I recognize that we
> have never done all twelve principles yet, so I don't have the high
> expectation that a We the People will emerge yet. But we done it
> lots of different ways, in different settings, and it all seems to
> work. Especially under the leadership of Manfred Hellrigl, the
> Office of Future Related Issues(OFRI) in Austria is sparking ever
> bigger more expansive experiments ... and they work. Rosa was
> telling me this morning about her trip to Vorarlberg, how she
> attended a conference of people who had experimented with three
> different CIC's, one in Switzerland, one in Germany and one in
> Austria. It was so exciting to hear her report. I'm really
> interested in hearing more.
>
> So at this point, even if this is just a theory. The theory is
> pretty exciting. It proposes that there is a safe, accessible way to
> facilitate the necessary shift in society ... from where we are
> driven toward our own self-destruction by a mechanistic system
> designed hundreds of years ago ... to a "Wise Democracy" where we
> all come together and address our problems thoughtfully,
> respectfully, and creatively. I think it's inevitable that people
> will start attending to this theory and we'll get to see if it
> works. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later.
>
> Jim

Denise Alvarez-Braunschweig
Helvetiastr.29
CH-3005 Bern

[amelia roache]

How do you get them to join you?
Beautiful women.  Duh.
Having some fun with this conversation.
But, really-
"how do we get them to"- I hear it as an energy of coercion.  Automatically gives me the impression that there is an "us against them" and some convincing will be carried out rather than the energy of Gifting and Receiving with enthusiasm and humility toward a conversation.  I suggest moving with that without the pint (!) with anyone who's willing to show up.  Go for it Richard!  Remembering something Marshall B. Rosenberg suggests
(not quoting here):  that if there isn't an element of play, forget it.  Our seriousness could be keeping us from that which nurtures and sustains.
Food for thought, perhaps.
Many thanks,
Amelia

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Gillian Haley <gillia...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Ah, the embarrassment of joining a group when not acquainted with all of the members. Thanks for speaking up, Dan. Maybe there will be a book about all the great stuff going on with DF in Victoria. I'm taking a closer look at the site and getting a lot out of it.

I think you've got something there with talking over a pint with the politicians and bankers. How do you get them to join you though?

Gillian

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Doherty" <d1do...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:53 PM

To: <dynamicfacilitation@googlegroups.com>

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilitation+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilitation+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

--
-----
Daniel Doherty, (250) 595-2290

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilitation+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Moore]

amelia roache wrote:

How do you get them to join you?
Beautiful women.  Duh.
Having some fun with this conversation.
But, really-
"how do we get them to"- I hear it as an energy of coercion.  Automatically gives me the impression that there is an "us against them" and some convincing will be carried out rather than the energy of Gifting and Receiving with enthusiasm and humility toward a conversation.  I suggest moving with that without the pint (!) with anyone who's willing to show up.  Go for it Richard!  Remembering something Marshall B. Rosenberg suggests
(not quoting here):  that if there isn't an element of play, forget it.  Our seriousness could be keeping us from that which nurtures and sustains.
Food for thought, perhaps.
Many thanks,
Amelia

______

Hi Amelia,

You speak from the perspective of a neutral facilitator. My perspective is that of an activist who is seeking to achieve certain objectives. For me, convening gatherings is way to pursue those objectives, and processes are tools that helps gatherings to achieve their highest potential. In a gathering itself, the role of neutral facilitation is central, as the outcomes must emerge from the energy of the participants themselves. But in choosing who to invite, and in framing the event and designing the event, I'm seeking to create 'fertile ground' where the outcomes I think are important are likely to emerge. Those outcomes have to do with helping diverse groups find common ground, inviting them think outside the box, and seeking to initiate an ongoing inclusive conversation among them. And the groups I'd want to work with are activist groups of various kinds in some local context.

nice to hear from you,

richard

[amelia roache]

Yep, invite beautiful women and, facilitate as neutral as possible.
I know you're an activist.  I was mostly giving a message to this google group in response to the fellow who asked the question around "how do you get them to".
Perhaps, your response is offering clarity within the group about where you stand.
I'm grateful the question was posed and that you've responded.

And, if I were to label activist or neutral to the following descriptions (in red) of your approach I would say they are neutral:
"I'm seeking to create 'fertile ground' where the outcomes I think are important are likely to emerge. Those outcomes have to do with helping diverse groups find common ground, inviting them to think outside the box, and seeking to initiate an ongoing inclusive conversation among them. And the groups I'd want to work with are activist groups of various kinds in some local context."  In blue, the areas where
I would describe as an energy of coercion is likely to show up precisely if there is a quality of moralistic judgement. 

When approached by people who are passionate and driven to achieve certain goals I'm much more likely to listen and participate when they are alive with an energy of intention to spark curiosity, wonder, intrigue- yummy.  But, as soon as I detect any coercion I'm gone.

You mentioned "in choosing who to invite".  I hear this as an awareness of how it is
in your hands.  A process of self-check and preparation regarding purpose, and perhaps to meet needs for integrity, balance, diversity etc.  I remember the question of "how to" invite came up in regards to someone(s) who might resist or shun the thought of participating in "such" a gathering.  I would encourage letting the invitees know how (you believe) their participation would contribute to meet basic needs of the group process, in fulfilling your objectives even, and acknowledging qualities/characteristics you are calling in rather than citing the "problems", any "have to's" or throwing around personal opinions (much less judgements).  Too many details of your thinking, opinions, assumptions can facilitate fertile ground for others' fearful imaginings of what the environment should or will be. In that regard, not giving them details about the gathering and without framing (your) objectives in fear.  The details will become available as the group emerges through the conscious, careful, skilled facilitation mentioned. 

This one from junior high school: K.I.S.S.-keep it simple stupid. That being said, no need for the beautiful women (in this case), or the pint.   Can you offer an invitation out of gratitude and opportunity to pursue the contributions of each other (ie: give and receive)? 

I would like to contribute more often to this group but I really don't like reading or writing, trying to hold "conversation" via the computer.  I'm motivated out of deep appreciation for the work that Jim and Richard are doing as well as my personal desire for radical social transformation.  Thanks for the continued curiosity from everyone in this group, the will to explore and be available to others, and all your efforts to realize new and incredibly improved systems worldwide.

Activ-ism.

Amelia
Taos, NM
USA

--
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.

[Richard Moore]

amelia wrote:

In blue, the areas where 
I would describe as an energy of coercion is likely to show up precisely if there is a quality of moralistic judgement.

Hi Amelia,

I fear we may be using a public space for a private conversation. However since you want to have fun, we can consider your statement above. Your statement, criticizing moralistic judgement, is in fact a moralistic judgement, as is the whole thrust of your comments. You are giving us your moralistic judgement about gatherings, and how and why they should be convened. And you say you are only likely to participate when the conveners share your particular moralistic perspective.

My work is entirely based on my moralistic judgements, and I can't think of any other reason why anyone would pursue activism.

cheers,

richard

_______

[amelia roache]

humm!!!
perfect example of why i most often choose not to communicate with a computer!
you seem upset, Richard and I'm unsure as to how that is.  I don't doubt what you
are doing at all.  Again, motivated to support you and this group.
I was using an example within the content you offered to address a potential for an energy of war, and brought to the table MY trepidation around "coercion" in that i need honesty. 
I wasn't citing you.
As for you hearing a criticism of moralistic judgement.  All I can say is that as I was writing it all down I was full of peace and tracking, exploring familiar energy.  Perhaps, had I used different language or framed it differently it would have made the difference for you.  Perhaps, as this conversation link has a history of a request you made of others to respond to (your) personal project, you found yourself listening within a framework addressed to you personally.  Add to it the fact that I used "you" in the bulk of my message to refer to any one in this group.   I'm really challenged by computer "conversations".
Thanks for the description of how your work is based.  And, and thanks for taking the risk.
I'm absolutely bewildered as to how you translated what I said into this statement about me:  "you are only likely to participate when the conveners share your particular moralistic perspective."  Quite not, sometimes I feel scared, apprehensive, doubtful and choose not to interact with some people.  I was cautioning around the quality of energy when approaching people to invite to convene and, now to add: it is impossible to be heard accurately via computer messaging.

cheers,
amelia

[Simon d'Orsogna]

I am appreciating what Richard and Amelia both hear/heard say-said – and that they shared it here. Not just effortful but I know for myself speaking into the edgeless forum of the internet is sometimes much too difficult.

 

And rather than leave it un-acknowledged I wanted to say how much I value each of their efforts at listening and conversing, and how we all make our piece in holding space for one another - and to allow the space to welcome as well as mis-hear, mis-quote, mis-direct, and generally fail along the way of learning as steps to growth.

 

Conversation online - without the tone, the visual cues, the smell and sense of the person - blinds us to 70% of our usual information.

 

And I celebrate that there is/can be a quality the listener brings the speaker - to be heard, to be listened into ones own speech, inviting words which surprise the speaker too

 

a blessing on your houses

 

Simon

 

 

---

From: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of amelia roache
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 10:52 AM
To: dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [DF] Re: didn't realize the situation was framed that way

 

humm!!!

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4073 - Release Date: 12/11/11 19:34:00

[anisha susanna]

Well said, Simon..thank you for this lovely bit of healing balm over the conversation between Richard and Amelia...as a silent but active listener on this list, I too wanted to not leave unacknowledged the genuine effort that they both made to communicate from the heart in a medium that leaves out much of how we sense and build rapport with people. 

Warm salaams,

Susanna

Susanna George
API Fellow 2011-12
http://tinyurl.com/APIFellow2011-12

Consultant
Strengthening Team Processes Through Critical Conversations
+6012 3723234
+62812 80 116516 (until 9 April 2012)

[Richard Moore]

Greetings,

I must say that you all make this a safe and useful space in which to engage in dialog. And though my responses to Amelia were on the argumentative side, I wish to gratefully acknowledge her for emphasizing the importance of that delicate balance between intention and enabling. I see those as a yang–yin pair: intend–enable. With Susanna, below, for example, the pair manifests as 'strengthen team processes'–'critical conversations'. As in all things of this world, balance is the critical factor.

I must also say that Amelia and I met long ago in person, and have ever since been mutually supportive net correspondents. So to the extent we confronted one another it was, I trust, in a spirit of tough love, not hostility. And even if she expressed it in a way that I felt exaggerated the point, her sense was on the mark, that I tend to overbalance my work on the yang side. After all, by background is in engineering, not facilitation.

I'd like to express my appreciation for the feedback received, on and off the list, regarding our planned Awaken Ireland conference. The planning process is proceeding well, and we are beginning to contact facilitators in Ireland for the event, and for refining the design of the event, facilitators well-versed in The Art of Hosting and related processes. 

Finally, let me say something about how the yang-yin balance has been playing out with Awaken Ireland. I approached them at first with a totally yang intervention, as they were not thinking about a conference, nor were they focusing on restoring Irish sovereignty as an objective. I then backed off to see what might develop. 

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they picked up on both ideas at their next meeting, and that they were inviting me back to participate in the planning. Thanks to Simon d'Orsogna, I had subsequently learned about the idea of a 'core group holding intention', when he referred me to Mary-Alice Arthur's video, The 6 Breaths of Process Architecture. My role thenceforth re/the conference has been 'holding the intention' – a role that somehow embraces in a creative way both sides of the yang-yin balance. 

best wishes to all,

richard

_________

[Michael S. Robinson]

From my perspective, the yin-yang is the ultimate symbol for the perpetual evolution of all that is. We exist within this constant movement, this dance of universal interconnectedness and effortless grace, with constant effort to suppress or diminish the darkness or the light to gain position of power, either over the other. In this effort we become in some way polarized and establish rigid postures to protect or perceptions of our own rightness over any other. This, I believe, is the very nature of being human.

 

If we have the ability and desire to set aside our biases and resolve to completely accept the rightness of others from the others perspective, the balance between the darkness and the light returns. The beauty of the conversation for creating choices is that when our preconceptions are checked at the door and all that enters the room is a willingness to humble ourselves to the value others bring to the conversation, the interaction begins to move right out of the brain and into the heart. Perhaps here we can clearly see the symbol at work, brain to heart to brain and so forth, in perpetuity. Our steadfast grip on our thinking and beliefs leaves little time for the connections of the heart, and this is where the most work of the world needs to be done.

 

The conversations in this group are fascinating to observe. We are committed to achieving change for the betterment of all and continue to express our ideas, at some level,  in the form of one’s rightness over another. As a participant in this glorious ride from the “womb to the tomb” my comments today are a result of my desire to applaud all of you for the effort you put into maintaining a positive and respectful environment in which to create choices within this group (no easy task when the inflections and gestures of the in-person element of a conversation is absent.) It is a belief of mine that unless or until we have encouraged every voice into the conversation regardless of education, position, character, religious belief, criminal background, moral values, ethnicity or other perceived limiting condition, then the conversation will always be out of sync with the yin-yang. We are all, like it or not, a part of the greater whole. Who among us can honestly say that we accept all others for who they are, regardless….. ?

 

In the spirit of a time of year where much of the world slows to celebrate, despite our differences, may we find courage to accept the differences between us, unconditionally, and a loving space where the hearts behind the struggle can gather in love and understanding among ourselves.

 

Love

 

Michael

[David W. Johnson]

Very nicely put, Michael.  Thank you!

--

[amelia roache]

Warm Greetings All-

What a beautiful Gift to hear the responses and support of our (the groups') efforts to communicate via this forum (as humans!) and the bit, seemingly between Richard and I.

My email account was hacked shortly after my last df group correspondence. This response is coming so late after this thread due to the fact that I only regained access this evening.

I'm blessed with the love flowing through this group.
On Christmas, too! kinda fun.

Love,
Amelia

[Simon d'Orsogna]

hello again

 

I am really enjoying the work of Ron Heifetz (Adaptive Leadership), Bob Kegan (Adult Development), and Peter Block (Civic Conversations)  - and wanted to share a little of their thoughts as a prompt for our shared development…

 

http://www.asmallgroup.net/pages/content/no_easy_answers.html (short interview with Ron H)

 

http://www.asmallgroup.net/pages/images/pages/CES_jan2007.pdf (small booklet by Peter B)

 

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp (interview on the evolving self with Bob K)

 

Happy new year!

 

Simon d'Orsogna

M 0418 321 254

 

Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4103 - Release Date: 12/25/11 19:34:00

[Ted Heinz]

DF friends,

I am curious to know if any of you have used DF in the context of Restorative Justice.

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

 

Ted

 

 

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Hi Ted,

Apologies for the belated response. What a great question.

Restorative Justice is a great field... would love to be doing more with it.

I think strictly speaking, Restorative Justice would be, when there is something that would come before a judge, and instead people are given the opportunity to come together in a facilitated circle, where the focus is on restoration (restoring relationships) and reparation (making up for the harm caused.)

I have never worked with a situation, that has been referred to me by a judge. However, here is a recent facilitation that I did, that may have some relevance...

**

A neighboring town has been involved in a major conflict, over a controversial monument that was built on public land, without much public input... After repeated attempts on the part of the townspeople to get the town government to engage in some negotiations, a community group was formed and decided to take legal action against the town...

so now, a year later, there is an agreement to go through a mediation process... which is still upcoming to my knowledge. At the same time, given all the hurt and polarization that has taken place along the way, some of the local townspeople wanted a "dialogue circle" to take place, to begin to depolarize the situation, and heal the wounds that have been created.

this is where DF comes in...

a friend of mine who lives in that town, asked me a month ago,  if I would be willing to facilitate a circle on a pro-bono basis. I said sure, and explained to her, "how I do dialogue":

I reflect each person's contribution, and write it up on chart paper;  also, when I am listening to someone, after hearing and reflecting their concerns and what they DON'T want for a bit, I will ask them to tell me, what it is that they REALLY want... as this is a good way of eliciting each person's creativity.

I also explained to her that, although this would not be a decision-making circle, that I would be inviting each person to offer their solutions, as that is a really good way for us to begin understanding, where each person is coming from...

**

All of that seemed fine to her, and so last week we held a two-hour circle, with me and the chart paper stand included in the circle of a dozen or so people...  My colleague was the convenor, and she did a great job of getting people to attend, from very different "sides" of the issue... including people from the town government, and, people from the community activist group...

At the begining, I let people know, how I would be "protecting" each participant... and also set appropriate expectations, by reminding them that in one two-hour session, we were not likely to "solve" the problem... but we were going to experience, a different way of talking about it... we were going to understand the situation better... begin to explore many different possible solutions...  and also, understand one anothers' perspectives better...

at the end of the two hours, the participants gave great feedback...

"I learned a lot... I heard people speak respectfully... I would like to see this happen again..."

"This has been great... it's to bad that the process of government, doesn't invite this sort of conversation... instead everything is usually very formal... this has been great!"

"It has been good learning new things, that I maybe wasn't aware of before..."

"It was great that we were allowed to express ourselves, and to hear from others... I learned things I didn't know before..."

"It was very good to hear everyone talk... there should be some way, that we can incorporate this into, the government of our town... all of our select-people should be here, I think they could benefit from this..."

"it was great to have this circle: it reminds me of the saying, that 'people feel they are enemies, only when they don't know who each other is'..."

"I'd like for us to devote serious financial resources, to finding ways to use this process in many different situations in our town.."

"We need people who have these kinds of skills, to help keep our town from becoming polarized..."

"I wish this had happened a year ago..."

"I wish I could do this all the time -- if I could govern this way, I'd re-up for more years in government. There are a whole lot of issues, that we could use this for!"

"We should do whatever we can, to continue this process."

***

I have offered to meet with this group three more times on a pro-bono basis, and suggested to them that one way of including more people, would be to host a large public gathering at the end of the four sessions, where they can tell their story as a group, of what they have learned from this.

I also briefly described how such a large public gathering could work, using the World Cafe process...

(for you attentive readers, yes, this is a sort of "CIC"... no, it's not a randomly selected group, and yes, it is a microcosm of the larger whole...)

So, we'll see what happens next...

there are always a lot of different factors involved in anything, and we can't know ahead of time, how it will all unfold. But so far, so good...

it was a very positive experience for everyone involved,

and I hope that you find it of some relevance, to your question about Restorative Justice...

with all best wishes,

Rosa

 

--

[deanna]

Hi Ted,

I have been involved in restorative justice work in the past  - mainly using transformative mediation with victim-offender reconciliation. This was prior to my learning DF. I think Rosa posted an appropriate definition of the process. 

New Zealand was the first country to make restorative justice official in that all juvenile cases are handled with a restorative process that involves the young person, his or her family, community members, school officials, and those harmed by what a young person has done. However, one requirement of this process is that the "offender" admits that s/he caused harm and is willing to be involved in the process. I think the only other exception is for cases of extreme violence where the "victim(s)" may not feel comfortable with the process.

Which leads me to my thoughts on using DF in this context... I think DF could be very effective in restorative justice when there is a community coming together to heal. I think there are some pre-conditions that would be important - depending on the sensitivity of the damage done and the willingness of people to participate in the process, such as those they have in New Zealand. 

Where mediation often gets muddled is when there are multi-parties involved in a conflict. DF shines in this context, and it shares a foundation of restorative justice, which is viewing "crime" as damaging the health of a community and "justice" as repairing and making the community whole again - not a box view of crime as breaking the law and enforcing a punishment for not following the rules, or retributive justice.

However, in my own experience, there are some who are too traumatized to sit in the same room with those who have killed their loved one or perpetrated sexual violence against them. I think DF could be a powerful healing process for those individuals prior to participating in any victim-offender process or just as a stand-alone. And, I also think a DF facilitator would need a heck of a lot of other skills to be able to handle this kind of serious trauma in a safe way.

My two cents,

DeAnna