Ming the Mechanic
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch

Saturday, May 22, 2004day link 

 The EQnomy Manifesto
picture Mentioned on Empowerment Illustrated, I'm looking at the EQnomy Manifesto. It is based on the idea that all human action is rooted in emotion, and the aim is that we can live consciously, in tune with others, and aiming at happiness for everyone. Here are its 12 Theses:
1. People want to experience that they live. Now.
2. The truly important things are: being-human, development, challenge and fun!
3. People define their own passion, energy, success and needs.
4. Our EQnomy is a sizzling party of real, authentic human beings.
5. We seek no 'balance between work and personal life'; we are our authentic selves in work and in private.
6. Our talents, time, attention, ideas, knowledge and networks are ours and our responsibility.
7. An organization is not a Counsel, Company, Care- or Educational Institution. An organization always consists of PEOPLE who are committed to each other and to other people.
8. "What does your care, involvement, service or product add to me, my development, challenge and fun!?"
9. We do not want to be 'robbed'; we want to be 'touched'.
10. Before we go along with an organization, we first want to understand it and feel it; the mission, the culture; the people.
11. We are loyal to the passion and inspiration with which all once began. Not to the rules that 'crept in' along the way.
12. To us it is not about WHAT we do. To us it is about WHY we do what we do.
That is an intriguing angle to take on everything. Life is about being alive, about being true to who we are. Any kind of organization and set of rules are of course secondary to the authenticity of what we're about, what life is about. If you're a different person at work than when you're "off", you're not being real.

Yes, imagine how life would be if we could live it authentically all the time, and we could allow others the same freedom, and we didn't feel compelled to force ourselves and others into some fake roles, pursuing aims than none of us really care about.
[ | 2004-05-22 07:48 | 5 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

 Dialogue
picture I'm missing dialogue. Dialogue as per the principles outlined by David Bohm. See
Dialogue - a Proposal. I used to be in a dialogue group that met once per month for half a day. Run by the people from The Dialogue Group. Dialogue done this way is something unique, very specific, but yet strangely nebulous. It is a gathering that doesn't have any direct purpose or aim. Nobody's trying to "accomplish" anything or to gain agreement or to arrive at an outcome. One sits down in a circle, quiet at first, and then when somebody feels inspired to speak, one speaks. When they're done, when somebody else feels inspired to speak, they do so. What others said forms part of your impetus to talk, but you aren't directly answering the others. Everybody focuses what is in the "middle" of the circle. We're in a way talking about the same thing, but without having agreed on what that is, and without any requirement to agree. We're kind of talking about what we see, what we experience. We can explore our assumptions, ideas and feelings. And, magically, it leads somewhere. Not necessarily a neat result, and it is hard to say what exactly came of it, but something will. It is a different kind of space than what one finds just about anywhere else. It is free, real, authentic. People are present. Where it goes is entirely open.
Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought.

In Dialogue, a group of people can explore the individual and collective presuppositions, ideas, beliefs, and feelings that subtly control their interactions. It provides an opportunity to participate in a process that displays communication successes and failures. It can reveal the often puzzling patterns of incoherence that lead the group to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all reason, on standing and defending opinions about particular issues.

Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.

Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.
Here are some other links, with much material:

Bohm Dialogue
Dialogue and Conversation
UIA Dialogue Links
Global Dialogue Institute
Open Forum

I haven't seen much real dialogue happen online. At least only rarely. But some of what works well with weblogs leans in that direction. Where you can just state what's on your mind, what's going on, without having to worry much about what others will think or whether what you say corresponds properly to what others are saying. But when it works, we might talk into the same space.
[ | 2004-05-22 08:35 | 17 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

Main Page: ming.tv