It’s as exciting to read now as it was during it’s genesis.

Actually, it may be more exciting now, as conditions for such frameworks improve.

I’ve never read that quote by Thoreau. Nice that “sift” is thrown in there.

I do appreciate Thoreau’s independence and elitism. I’ve just recently begun reading Emerson too. His essay on self-reliance is strongly related to the ideas written about in this post - though I read him after.

I suppose I believe a bit of what you suggest at the end. Maybe less a “calling” and more a “purpose”. That there are specific things each of us are ideally suited to do - perfect for that purpose. A way of being that is a nature outpouring of our character, perspective, and understanding.

Google threw up an interesting George Eliot quote today: “The important work of moving the world forward does not wait to be done by perfect men.”

Thanks for your note. I hope you continue to dig in when you have the urge. Drop me an email “jeremy.heigh at gmail.com” if you’d rather keep it offline.

“I fail to get even the attention of the mass. I should suit them better if I suited myself less. I feel that the public demand an average man,–average thoughts and manners,–not originality, nor even absolute excellence. You cannot interest them except as you are like them and sympathize with them. I would rather that my audience come to me than that I should go to them, and so they be sifted;”

it seems you like thoreau, and at least, to some extent, thoreau too was an elitist. elitist facilitator does not seem self-contradictory, but rather necessary if you are to facilitate the elite. Differences between the words to describe roles do not interest me too much; because if I were make the words fit, then they fit, and if I can’t then they won’t… ultimately very unfulfilling for some reason.

on a slight tangent, it seems you believe there exists meaning and purpose prior to experience. that is, you, as a being, have abilities and callings and the fulfillment of these things is/are your specialty(ies). and if you should accept your role as a facilitator, then that is your calling… unless, of course, you somehow feel that, the fulfillment of “that knack” unfairly pins you to a mold and leaves you writhing on the wall…?

To be fair to Emerson, one man has the thought, but nothing is done. Another, some time later, has the same thought and changes an era. Both had the same thought for themselves.

Emerson’s essay is, in part, about the historical cycle of relearning. We cycle first through primes, then concepts, then principles, then applications, and back through again at the start - over and over again across time. At every point in time, the thoughts must be our own to truly own them.

So - Trotsky followed, Calvin and Zwingly translated, but maybe none of them ran from start to finish on the principal thought.

My questions move past Emerson and ask if we can effect greater change by giving slices to people with capacities specific to the principle thought. Can we move up to where the thinker is not necessarily in all parts the doer?

In some ways I wonder if that’s a lazy ambition. A quick fix. Perhaps all worthwhile change must wait for that second person - the one who thinks and acts to drive through change.

I wrote it because Dave and I don’t really agree (though in nothing but the most amicable of ways). And I don’t think my question was driven out of an interest in leadership - rather, I’m interested in creating environments that allow stuff to happen. More catalyst than champion.

Now, with all that on the table, I agree with everything Dave said about a process of collaboration/innovation.

I also agree with Jon on coaching and would use the sentence he gave to define facilitation: helping others “advise her /himself from their beliefs, wishes, desires and motivations.”

As I’ve written before, audacious as it sounds, I’d aspire to be Socrates before I’d aspire to run anything myself.

But I’m still interested in what Siona and Chris would add to this conversation (which, by-the-way Dave, I’d call a blog-hosted conversation).

I am dubious about Coaches offering advice, unless it is in the guise of probing through questions like “what if”, etc. When I was coaching more, I learned pretty quickly not to offer advice unless asked for it and even then would probe further to see if a coachee might be able to advise her /himself from their beliefs, wishes, desires and motivations.

People who offer advice I would call Advisors.

So if a group of people were Invited (=life brought in) to an Open Space event, the only exclusivity would be imposed by who was not invited, each would be an expert (=experimenter, someone who Tries things) in a different way, and only the coach would intervene (=come between) the invitees.

The Host would offer the invited a place to collaborate (work together) and would Try to make them welcome.

The Facilitator would make it easier by Trying to removing obstacles (=things standing in the way) to the collaboration.

The Coach would offer advice (=what they see) to Try to make the collaboration more effective.

The Artist would reflect the results of the collaboration to Try to show what s/he perceived.

None would lead, direct, control or manage the event, so in that sense it would not be elitist, but rather self-managed. Those who aspire to lead, direct or manage others would probably find their presence unappreciated.

In fact, I think increasingly collaborators, invitees working together, may Ask, individually or collectively, someone to Coach them in a particular context, at their discretion, based on reputation rather than role, so a Coach may not even be needed or appreciated.

As I get older, I no longer aspire to be a leader, controller, manager or director. I aspire less to be a Coach, and more to be a Facilitator.

My view is that once we are all called to something bigger…though some hear the call stronger than others.

I think if you research the so-called great lives, you will find that they started with doing small mundane things well, then moved up the food chain.

One thing I remember about Thoreau, he wrote about utopian societies, but his wife would have nothing to do with it…so he didnt act on the idea…which was probably a good thing.

Peace and love to all wisdom seekers!

Randy (gazing out at Dows lake)

I think, “Perhaps it’s because the people who come to me come this way to everyone …” is probably your closest answer to why people seek your advice. I think that you are one of the few who recognize this is why you have found a way to provide insight.

Most people don’t notice themselves and others looking into life for more meaning. One of the reasons I like Henry David Thoreau is that he calls this out of nearly everything. His insight is rare enough that this quote is easily recognized, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

Am I meant for something bigger? I’ve always imagined I was. Maybe you’re right though - start small. Thing is, I’ve been doing that for a long time.

I’ve wondered if doing that which only I can do means in part doing that which I am invited to do. That these things might be best if not forced or strived towards. Not sure about that. What do you think?

What does “what am I afraid of” reveal?