Hi
I empathize with Chris a few days of summer kayaking and I return to
discussions of such intensity and depth that I can not hope to fully to
understand and follow them. Steve urges us to follow threads but in the warp
and weft of a weaving of ideas how is that possible?.

I search through my memory and the postings for items of significence...but
the difficulty lies with how do I determine what is significant...I see what
I want I am selective...but does that also mean I am authentic?....we weave
our own tapestry of significence.

Charles Taylor also said... instead of arguing for and against the concept
of authenticity we should be arguing about it....What does authenticity
mean?....How can we go about achieving it?...While I'd like to know what
authenticity means to different people, in the spirit of this 'thread'
perhaps we should be asking those questions and many more about outdoor
education/learning or even more specifically about an international forum of
outdoor education.

I believe (although my knowledge of Taylor is very limited) that he says
that boosters, knockers and even the middle grounders of (modernity) all
take the wrong stance and that we should all adopt the critical voice....but
for me every voice has something of importance to say...perhaps I'm just an
inveterate middle grounder.

Happy adventuring
Jo Straker


 At 09:45 AM 12/22/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello James - This is a very interesting thread that you have introduced
>in a very interesting way. Before I say a little something to try and
>help this debate let me first make a clarification from my side.
>
>Chris was mainly talking about a kind of "authentic" freedom and one of
>his main points was that organisations all too often tried to control
>such an authenticity. I think that if more people could follow the
>orginal threads then replies might make good sense and develop in
>intelligent ways.
>
>Second it has been said, for many years now, that the outdoor industry
>is interesting in that it tends to "BOOST" itself and quite often tries
>to use research to boost itself. In this any good and intelligent
>research is considered a threat and to be "knocking". I suggest my words
>here keep to this now wider thread.
>
>Third - I might say that there are many students that do not find
>themselves in the position that you have placed them. Maybe your
>students do not ask questions but certainly I know of many students that
>are always asking questions as a central part of an education for
>democratic participation.
>
>Now to my continuation : Charles Taylor ( in his Ethics of Authenticity)
>writes very clearly that he does not find "knocking" or "boosting" to be
>a way towards authenticity but to find this path ( which is NOT a midlle
>or "third way) is first to be critical. I have found many intelligent
>voices in this debate and the work of many in OAE generally seems to
>find the work of Taylor quite useful.I would love to be just one of
>those voices.
>
>But Talyor is very critical of a world that runs an "Eco" death wish
>attached to an expansive and alienating condition through Capitalism.
>The problem here is that if Charles taylor would write on outres he
>would be called a knocker. He would be seen to be waving a sword and he
>would be taken out of the context of the debate.
>
>I would like to try and keep to the threads and to find the adventure
>just there in seeking out just where such a thread might lead. But this
>takes a critical nerve and it takes a list that really wants to DO
>research. This takes a list that will work at critical processes
>attached to reasonable arguments. This takes a list that refuses to
>BOOST itself.
>
>We might move through Charles Taylor - his work might help and inspire.
>But, I repeat such a job of work may not find a place in the outdoor
>industry although it most certainly would in EDUCATION and research.
>
>Education today is usually seen as a knocker just like any critical
>research is seen as a knocker by those that wish to consolidate just
>what "they have" and "want". It was in this vein that I understood the
>words from Chris. I did not take his words in personal ways or
>threatening ways. Perhaps if the thread that Chris planted could be
>followed and elasticated more research workers might continue the debate
>and dialogue.
>
>As a final comment - I suspect that outres is clearly split into an
>"Outdoor Industry" as advertised as the newly invented term "Outdoor
>Learning" and Education, pedagogy and intellectually adventurous work. I
>suspect that this is one of the biggest conditions that, in many ways,
>creates the "terminology-thinking" of those that "do" and those that
>"knock". Many that work from education generally are "knockers" in the
>minds of the outdoor industry and that may be a most significant split
>indeed. What is the bias of outres? We will never know until we seek out
>such a bias.
>
>Personally i do not accept the trends of the Outdoor Industry and if
>that means I am to be a "knocker" then so be it. I return to Charles
>Taylor for there I am no BOOSTER or KNOCKER.
>
>best wishes
>steve bowles
>