(I)

Video comment:

I thought it was interesting to hear about the distinction between H2- and H2+ as innovations that are either captured by H1 or harnessed by H3. I also thought it was curious that the authors decided to anthropomorphize the horizons by using the words "death" and "birth" to describe their entrances and exits.

(Q) I wonder how these conversations can happen productively if the person in the position of power is unwilling to listen or collaborate? At the end of the day, since they are in the role of power, aren't the visionary and innovator positions stuck settling for whatever the power person wants to provide?

(Q)

I am not sure I understand fully this concept of H2+ and H2-. Are these supposed to be innovative concepts or ideas that either end up thriving or failing?

(Q)

How do people predict what may be H2 and especially H3? It feels like there could be limitless possibilities. I suppose that folks may just be making a best guess of sorts. And I wonder if the process is more about opening folks up to be ready for change, rather than ready for just a specific change.

(I)

I think this is definetly the most spiritual change making process by far. The whole trust the process concept is very unfamiliar to most secular spaces.

(I) This reminds me of buddhist thinking. A sense of being in the present and respecting exactly what is happening in the moment.

(C)

This reminds me a bit of the philosophy that guided my middle school. We used to start every morning by sitting in a circle. And we also had other times when we would sit in a circle too, whether someone got in trouble, or we were doing an activity.

(Q) I would be curious to know exactly how these patterns were decided upon. Was it just one cultural anthropologist that created these ideas, or is this an established framework?

(C) I think this idea is really beautiful. Taking responsibility for what you love is deeply empowering. I think also guiding folks towards addressing the concerns most pressing for them is the best way to touch into someone's sense of commitment and drive.

(I) All of these rules and conventions feel almost like the opposite of facilitation. I think there is a sense of trust and agency that is being uplifted through this practice.

(C) This is part of the reason why I love ENVD and studio culture, because we also don't aspire to this concept. I think all design professionals know that creative happens best when you are having fun and feeling connected.

(q) Are the etiquette expectations for participants created by the participants or by the organizers? How would etiquette expectations vary in different cultural settings or when using the conversation cafe for different types of organizations?

(C) These series of questions remind me of the appreciative inquiry process in which how you frame your goals and ideas helps to construct the outcome of the process.

(C) This is a significant claim that I imagine many people would disagree with. This idea reminds me of the theory of knowledge that I believe Plato (?) talks about, where truth is inside each one of us, rather than in the outside world.

(q) How is this process unique strucutred or organized to ensure that deeper patterns become revealed?

From the blogpost, the author described scenario planning as a valuable tool for corporate strategy since the future of all our planetary systems are changing rapidly right now. They recommended bringing historically marginalized groups to the table such as indigenous peoples, who may be able to offer helpful perspectives.

I felt sad reading this because I think the main perspective, of a corporate strategist, is a fundamental need to increase shareholder value. I imagine what reading a blog post instead written by indigenous people would say or recommend about systems change in our increasing volatile climate.

(Q)

Who determines what the four main scenarios that get considered are? I can imagine that among a group of people there would be quite a few potential futures explored.

(C)

This also reminds me of Bruce's Sustainable Futures class, specifically the presencing process. The 5 phases also simplify this otherwise complex process into a manageable experience.

(C)

This reminds me of a lot of what we have discussed in Bruce's Sustainable Futures class with the multi-level-perspective. Before considering the meso or micro level, the changes in the landscape level must be taken into account as the landscape level affects all other levels.

(C)

The idea of creating strategic options in the face of a daunting future reminds me of the goal of the accounting and finances classes I took as a part of my business minor. The end goal of financial book-keeping and analysis is to empower decision makers in a chaotic world with as much information and clairty as possible.

(I)

I feel like this is one of the main ideas of the reading. Scenario thinking is meant to stretch our ideas about the future so that we can be as strategic as possible. Often I think people unintentionally think more short-sighted when making decisions so having an intentional activity to think into the future sounds valuable.

(I)

I did have this question. EVERTHING seems so rigid, from the exact number of people to even what times of day the meetings are scheduled for. But I appreciate the firm commitment to their process. In my own life, I actually really enjoy and appreciate clear rules and expectations.

(Q)

I wonder if speaking about difficult issues in groups of people that don't know eachother is ever awkward. What happens if folks don't feel comfortable to share, open-up, and be vulnerable?

(Q) What kinds of change would benefit from this process that haven't even been considered? I wonder if the federal government could benefit from a future search.

(C) This reminds me a lot of Bruce's class from last semester. Making sure that we engage all stakeholders possible when considering large scale change.

(I) This concept of riding the highs and lows and trusting ourselves to experience despair as both unavoidable but also necessary to be able to best envision our ideal future, reminds me of an event I went to this weekend. I saw a "play"/theater performance put on by Motus Theater for Boulder County as a community engagement event around the update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. There was a lot of pain and trauma shared by the community. Although it was stressful, it felt important that everyone's issues were experessed and understood before we could move into themes of hope.

(I) This seems to be a core concept of this change method. Having folks come together to make high-impact change in a short periond of time. This is how my housemate and I navigate change and conflicts as well. We have timed meetings and an agenda so when we need to problem solve something we can act fast and cohesively.

(Q) What does this mean? Does this mean less hierarchical or does it refer to literal physical flatness?

(I) This is a really interesting concept that reminds me of appreciative inquiry. I enjoy the fact that differences are simply acknowledged and they are not trying to be changed. The focus instead rests on the power that exists because of differences.

(q) I wonder why the environment I smore important than the process? I would have thought the two would have to work hand in hand.

(Q) What does this mean?

(Q) This is an interesting framing of the converse as well "what do you want less of." I wonder how this question fundamentally changes creativity?

(Q) I wonder if there is a better shorthand for this term since now Artificial Intelligence is so popular!

(I) Another really interesting line. We accept the negative, but we draw our action from positive sources. I think this makes a lot of sense since life-giving positive energy is far more sustainable than negative energy.

(C) Connection to Bruce's Sustainable Futures class about feedback loops. Positive energy seems to be a positive feedback loop and negative energy, a negative feedback loop.

(C) This reminds me of ideas we explored in Bruce's Sustainble Futures class. When imagining what could be, or seeing the best potential version of something or someone is inherently generative. Your imagination brings the possibility of that highest future into reality.

(I) I also like the idea of thinking about what are "life giving" forces. My mom speaks in these types of terms. Life is growth and change and collaboration and integration. Death is stagnation, isolation, and permanence. Life giving forces are important to identify and cultivate!

I) Problem solving can be useful in short spurts or in contained instances, but long term problem focused thinking can lead to a negative, problem oriented culture. This reminds me of things in my own life where if I focus too much on what is going wrong, I can build a sense of overwhelming doom. It is important to highlight strengths and successes, even personally, in order to stay postivie and motivated when difficult or problematic instances arise.