Hello again Robert and all - Phew, that was a wide and warm display of
positions Robert and I do not mean this badly. But I would like to try and take
just one of your points and relate it to the earlier point from John Quay
concerning BANKING education.
Your point concerns the "purpose(ful)" rationality of that to which we intend
and move towards and with.
Here is one face of a Banking system ( although a sens eof purpose is not being
denied here) so long as it takes on mere instrumental rationality.
There are other rationality-contexts whereby a "mix" of motivations and
word-deeds make solid sense. For example the poetic and the aesthetic and the
sensuous social body are significant here. To over-emphasise "purposeful
rationality" is surely a very big proble-story of all life and of life seen
through social science. When, for example, the rule books and the Law are
divorced ( fault-lined) from morality then this fragmentation shows itself in
the need for a new code - a code of ethics.
I am saying here that we must take seriously the instrumental value but we must
not seperate it from the working contects of real life as lived. Formulas and
codes need de-coding for this to happen. Programmes need de-programming and this
is one beginning for a counter to banking education. But to do that we are
working inside a constellation where instrumental rationality (
lonley-selections) is but one voice. We are working, in one way or another, with
a face of the good life and well-being. So yes we do need that old guy Aristotle
- still !!!!
Comment : Banking education takes on the purposeful-instrumental rationality and
by doing so acts in the name of the alienated world of fragments and risk. I
deny that kind of banking and i deny that over-emphasis upon a purposeful
rationality.
best wishes
steve bowles
Robert Bavis wrote:
> Sorry I keep sending this just to one person (Steve Bowles in this case)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bavis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:26 AM
> To: 'Steve Bowles'
> Subject: RE: process vs. outcomes - language
>
> Steve and Roger and any interested lurkers...
>
> I can't help but step in for at least a moment or two to ask: To what
> purpose - the PROCESS or the END/OUTCOME - is THIS current discussion
> heading/headed? Do you want to (merely?) reach a
> solution/resolution/agreement/disagreement or do you want this to be
> on-going discussion continue without ending. OR, do want to bake your cake
> and eat it too? In this very discussion you are questioning whether or not
> there is a rift/fault line between PROCESS and OUTCOME.
>
> Do we really want/need to go back in time to Aristotle's myriad
> reflections/discussions on the "Particulars" and "Essence" of "reality" to
> find an answer, or to walk another's journey?
>
> What do you Roger, Steve, James (et al.?) want - a mindful meandering? a
> purposeful pilgrimage? or, an aimless wandering? Hermes (i.e. hermeneutics)
> is always at play when two or more are gathered together in discourse. Do
> we want to find agreement (an outcome) on terminology or explore the
> dynamics of the ever changing "word"? Both? Neither?
>
> Can we really (temporarily?) escape our "western" scientific "objectivity"
> so that our subjective thoughts and experience can (temporarily) take the
> forefront? Should we? How can we?
>
> Does this discussion have purpose (seeking an end goal) or does it need
> purpose?
>
> Implicit in my quasi-Socratic questioning is the quest to set parameters (an
> ultimate goal) for the purpose of deciding how to get beyond philosophical
> reiterations (of which I am already deeply immersed:)) and onto SOMETHING
> pragmatic/practical for the so-called "lay person" (e.g. the first year
> practitioner). I hope something useful will trickle down the steps of the
> "ivory tower" of philosophical discussion but I also recognize that the
> "trickle" may have value in and of itself.
>
> I also want to avoid the ultimately non-Aristotelian (sp?) quagmire of
> "monism" (i.e. the belief that all is one). I do so because I personally
> believe to do so would put us all on the shifting sands of subjectivism...at
> best, a most difficult ground to stand on together.
>
> My recommendation: Decide the/an ultimate purpose for continuing the
> discussion. Is it for "puffing ourselves up" or is it for some other
> reason?
>
> Maybe this current quest is foundering a bit in the fog...
>
> Robert
> A Socrates-wanna be :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: To enable debate and discussion around research issues in outdoor and
> adventure education [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve Bowles
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: process vs. outcomes - language
>
> Yes Roger I agree - something might come from this.
>
> I also agree that we might need to keep on walking along that
> "fault-line".
>
> Language is stretched here to the limits. behavioural and positivistic
> games are one game here and hermeneutics and/or critical hermeneutics
> are another.
>
> The discussion so far has not yet asked WHO IS SPEAKING and this
> discussion so far has not yet asked about the living context ( the
> situation) of this abstracted process and abstracted outcome.
>
> Such is one face of this "fault-line" just as the
> epistemological-ontological faces will inevitably smile as we move along
> and make the pathway.
>
> But we must get real here.
>
> I tried to bring up before the Dewey links with pragmaticism and in this
> i was ready to find replies from Richard Rorty as would be a sensible
> hope. But we must get real. Few, if any, adventure programming texts
> have even begun to consider such texts and we must seek out educational,
> philosophical, experiential, pedagogic and similar texts and discussions
> for help and communication so long as adventure programming texts are
> the easy to follow and shallow to wade rivers of discontent.
>
> Am I dropping "names"? I do not think so.
> I am however dropping any expectations knowing what I know about
> mainstream literature concerning adventure programming.
>
> It might be that we need to invite more "outsiders" to join the
> conversation.
> At least then the wider community of research would see that we are
> willing to try.
>
> But maybe a book or text might be discussed to help us walk our pathway.
>
> That way we might all learn a thing or two together - other discussion
> lists do this.
>
> But maybe we simply need to begin with the big stories like positivistic
> behaviour schemes and the many alternatives to any mirror of
> nature/representational stuff.
>
> Who speaks and with what ?
>
> best wishes
> steve b
>
> Roger Greenaway wrote:
>
> > As Steve has picked up this thread again, I wonder if others will
> > too?
> >
> > There is the possibility of quite a creative outcome to this
> > thread whether it's a clarification of terms or the
> > discovery/creation of an area of research where it is useful to
> > think of ''process'n'outcome'' as bound together and inseparable.
> >
> > My last comment in this thread was that I felt 100% confused
> > following James's comment about his willingness to plug students
> > into the wall if it worked, but not wanting to be characterised
> > as an outcomes person (since followed by announcing on this list
> > the award of 'Research Site of the Month' for an outcomes study)
> >
> > To put this kind of argument to the test I have painted myself
> > green and I plead with everyone I meet not to call me a
> > green-painted person.
> >
> > OK - I am forcing the issue. But is this not how (academic)
> > dialogue proceeds? It is because I am confused that I am seeking
> > enlightenment. Maybe someone can help James explain his point or
> > help me understand it?
> >
> > The process/outcome issue is far from being a trivial one. It is
> > a major fault line running through the history of research in our
> > field. Here is an opportunity for us to do something about it.
> >
> > Roger Greenaway
> > Reviewing Skills Training
> > [log in to unmask]
> > http://reviewing.co.uk
|
