|
|
Round-Table outcomes – a Orthodox Academy of
Crete (OAC), Chania- Kolympari, June 3, 2008 as part of the 1001 Actions - 1001 Nights side-events I enjoyed the experience,
thanks you very much. ΤΙΣ
ΑΓΟΡΕΥΕΙΝ
ΒΟΥΛΕΤΑΙ -
Τις αγορεύειν
βούλεται Magic round table method Who is
wishing to take the speech? The idea
of an open discussion round table, where everyone could freely express
his/her ideas on a time dependent manner is excellent. The
limitation of time provides the opportunity to put forth only what is worthy
on saying. Sharing
time between one another after an introductory discussion is a useful idea.
It provides the opportunity to the attending audience to hear things they
consider worthy. It also gives the opportunity everyone to be expressed and
puts forth a vivid discussion. The
schedule of exchanging speaking time on the basis a discussion progresses is
an educational means that should be applied to interactive classrooms. A
further developed practical form capable of being applied to the Elementary
or level possibly to Secondary School level would be to the benefit of
youngsters. It would provide means to develop their skills and personalities
and will enable them to become better audience and speakers. Congratulations. Keep the good way on. Demetrios
Concern: Some fear self disclosure. Interesting to hear from the
spiritual backgrounds of the others. Maybe it could have been longer and more
focussed on a special issue. Anders
I enjoyed the more personal
and spontaneous nature of the encounter --
the smallness of the group and the relaxed setting. Annette A wonderful model of
conversational dialogue. A diffuse group of people
hear their differences — and find some/many similarities. I loved the use of “stones”
- is different than that I have done before. Interesting implications
(this model) for interfaith dialogue. Gord Very intersting way of
regulating talking time. Appears to be a fairly democratic or populist way of
allowing for the topics/speakers that are most intersting / helpful to the
group. My concern was slow time it took for a topic / speaker to begin once
one conservation was over. And at times it felt a bit
unnatural for conversation I that short (less than one minute) comments
seemed to be discouraged in the method.
Daniel It was strange:
we came together to communicate. Not about a special topic of particular or
general interest, not because there might have been a problem in any way
which we had to solve. We were just asked to come together for the
communication itself. Anyway,
everybody is communicating somehow, even if he/she isn’t speaking…then by
mimics, gestics, probably a strange behaviour saying: “don’t talk with me”.
People are speaking with each other, chatting at dinner, even – and probably
especially – in a group of whole-day-long-talking academics. So,
it might not be a big difference doing that just by coming together in a
different room for some (given) time, sitting around that “magic table”. I
thought. What
I haven’t considered at this time was that this “coming together in a
different room for some (given) time, sitting around that ´magic table`”
already made each person expecting
something. Each was willing to participate. And this alone makes a big
difference: Participating people are “open” from the beginning which has a
great obvious advantage of this method: those who don’t want to communicate
are left outside, which excludes also that ones which may for any reason
interrupt or disturb the communication (of a given topic). Our
topics in that round then had been very diverse: everybody was able to speak
about whatever he/she wanted and the introduction round and the following
movement of the “time” made each topic clear for everybody. Even it was hard
for me to remember the topics of each of the ten participating persons – it
seemed that in some cases also the speaker didn’t remember his initial topic. Here
advantages of the method became obvious: 1)
the speaker who moved away from his topic could
easily be disciplined by not given more speaking time. In contrary, a speaker
who opens a new topic (e.g. in the case that the former one was heavily
discussed to an end) can be rewarded. The courage to open a new topic is
rewarded! 2)
An oratory/rhetoric speaker with no topic of common
interest is not accepted and will therefore be punished by not given more
time (stones, whatever). In contrast, a “non-speaker” with probable new ideas
can be rewarded. Anyhow,
the whole conversation –communication- started more as a game then a “must”
to speak. It was indeed that, communication as a game, and – like in every
parlour game - everybody has the same
rights, needs and – above all – time. What
surprised me was that the negative effects of an “usual” communication
behaviour was eliminated automatically: e.g. one doesn’t have to be polite or
has to “play” attention like happening particularly in dialogues Ž if I don’t
listen any more then it’s the “fault” of your missing time (stones,
whatever). All
in all, I’m really surprised about the dynamics which took place in a group
of people who didn’t even know more than the names from each other. I
belief that this is surely a great method especially in a one-topic-round
table in which the arguments then can even be much more dynamical (e.g. the
whole group decides if talking about the pro’s or contra’s – without loosing
time about a specific order; new ideas to solve a special problem are
rewarded; a person, who can share insider-knowledge – and shares it – is
rewarded probably Ž
information/knowledge can probably be available for a whole group instead of
being the advantage of a single person!). Last,
but not least: I think especially non-speakers profit from the direct
response of the whole group to the manner of speaking. I for myself was
pretty fast aware by the fact that my topic wasn’t really well accepted. But
instead of hearing that from somebody else (which surely would have piqued my
ego) I just had the possibility to intervene by myself and could give away my
stones so others had to talk J However,
there are so many options, possibilities and varieties offered by a simple to
use method so that I hardly can believe that man haven’t thought about this
earlier. Stephan Ι attended a couple of such
magic round tables over the years. This circle meeting late at night and till
the early morning doing virtual conferencing (as we can not all meet at one
time in one place) was exceptional as this EcoTHEE conference is and was an
extraordinary event with very special people participating. Partipants were attentive,
sensitive, deep, compassionate, and yes we should get used of the rules of
the dialogue game, as you can not expect optimum results when it needs time
to warm up for a new dialogue and decision culture - harnessing the wisdom of
all people. The crisises of our times are so complex and dynamic that we can
not afford any more to just perplexed put our head in the sand. We looked long ago into a DaZiBao
conference participant messaging – this Conference is a basic, robust first step
towards including the views and experience of the people and the traditions !
and including the odd or the “others”.
Please consider the need for
New and Old Agora to emerge. This is an invitation to be part of an effort
which might be based on or can possibly start in Here is the opening outline
of a proposal to the Anna Lindh Foundation: Transcultural Dialog and
Peace-Making Roundtable
learning from experience during the last 40 years and new ideas Stumbling blocks preventing true dialog,
peace-making, and reconciliation: 1) we fight over words but do not check the meaning, 2) we do not question and compare the values attached
to statements and attitudes, 3) we do not contextualize and embody concepts and
meaning, do not check the sectors, regions, scales, proportions and
consequences of alternative actions, 4) we do not give voice, empower, listen, cherish and
cultivate difference or variety in dialog and decision making, 5) Disorientation and dumbing-down in Cyberculture and
a mis-administered and misunderstood, intangible “Globalisation /
Glocalisation”: Where we get overloaded by communication noise (sign/symbol
melange) and media demagogy which means: no trust and fidelity in the
statements and no ways and means to check the credibility and
impact/relevance, and get lost between the scales, brackets, and sectors. 6) The above incompatibility and incomparability opens
the door for over-claims and oversimplifications. Leaders use intangible
jargon (plastic-words), neglect impacts and avoid instead of exploring
differences and alternatives. Please enjoy, subsume and
resonnate, and come back ! Heiner Rules are made for the
guidance of the wise and the obediance of the foolish. Robin Impressions from the
Facilitator of the Agora (see: Open-Forum
Round-Tables or a collection of
Dialogue Papers) It is not about rules, but
about self-organization and collective wisdom as David Bohm pointed
out:”Dialogue is the glue of society and the only possibility to face the
challenges of the world through changing consicousness to make a
difference! But “beginnings are gentle…no gongs for certainty, but flute sounds.”
(Judy Brown) Farah |
|
