Hello Roger - I mention only ten questions and only "provide" one.
"A little more background" may well be necessary for us to communicate.
The instrumental value-base of a career and profession might not always
blend so well with "other" ways of being alive - being alive.
To participate ( really) is to "be" quite unprofessional at times.
In the end I guess that we must select - to "be" professional or to "be
"participating" with the real works of folk-life. Can we be JUST "and
this" and ""and that" ? OR are we to be different as different can be ?
Go tell it to on mountain - for the ropes course cannot and will not
listen.
Can we really participate in a just way, when we are mere professionals
?
Ask the "Spiders Webs" that travel so well with credit-cards of a
problem-solving device that offers the solutions as new problems
invent(ed) by the problem-makers !
The very word of "Holy Shit" takes on an extra-special meaning thereby.
I ask for content as I ask for form.
Really.
This "holy shit" is "much more than I think it is". Praise the lord.
Not really.
But sometimes.
Maybe.
How might we sleep well at night ?
Hermes
Roger Greenaway wrote:
> Chris - you mention 8 questions but only provide 6. Would it be
> useful to list all 8 of these extra questions, or the other
> questions to which these are the extra ones? A little more
> background may make it easier to participate - for UK and other
> folk.
>
> You suggest some interesting alternatives to traditional thinking
> about institutions. Maybe that's what's needed - a range of
> alternatives. Maybe we'll get there not by searching for one
> solution but by both/and thinking -allowing a whole range of
> pathways suitable for the many different forms of outdoor
> learning that already exist and other forms we may want to
> develop in the future.
>
> Are there any good precedents for having such multiple pathways
> in other careers/professions or does that just spell chaos?
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
|