Hi All
Ralph poses an interesting dilemma. Whether or not to indicate in what we call ourselves the nature of our services. Florian expresses the case for the latter with usual flair! To date I have gone along with this (although I have little evidence of its effectiveness). Which is why the name 'conversationalist' appeals to me. I have long believed that what people do in gatherings underpinned by the principles and practice of OST and associated processes is converse. And my role is to cocreate the conditions in which this happens. The name collaborateur is coined in this spirit, but now with an outcome in mind. It was the product of conversing with my friend Pille Bunnell, President of the American Society for Cybernetics and coauthor of many papers with Humberto Maturana. Pille was here in Adelaide to present a couple of workshops with me last weekend; we will offer these in Melbourne and Sydney next month. Martin, you got it in one! It is not to be confused with collaborator - although for some people of course it would be. The connotation is similar to evocateur; assist in bringing forth. A collaborateur would co-create the conditions in which an outcome is enhanced collaboration. I sense that this is what you are on about, Jeff, and in complex situations, as you indicate, Meg. Perhaps is it strategic when operating in the business world to have a bland name (sic) and let word of mouth from satisfied clients do the work of attracting new ones - which is what we rely on anyway. Joelle, your comment about having to produce a stream of new cards resonated strongly! Some of my earlier 'experimental' cards indicated: Passion Releaser, Fear Buster, New Stories for Old - only partly facetiously! I believe that Peace Making is invariably what we do intrinsically. Making this explicit depends on the context. Good to converse, with love Alan Adelaide
