Dear Je Kan, Alon, Brian and all,
What a strange turn (from my perspective) this conversation has taken! But
perhaps also a very revealing turn, reflecting the creativity of the
initial sharing gesture.
Indeed, I was not suggesting that the imagery should 'stand alone' (that
would be most non-inclusional!) but that the intention (of initiating
reflection and conversation) was best served by not including supporting
narrative and thereby allowing different perspectives to emerge.
The great 'hang up' of orthodox communication theory is that the
communicator MUST be 'understood' if his/her communication is to have any
worth (I personally receive much rejection on this basis - which is why,
along with the Catch 22 that I'm not famous enough, I can get so little of
my recent work 'formally' published). The communicator MUST know the
audience 'in advance' and select the optimal form of expression to suit
this audience. The audience (unless it is a student audience!) has no
obligation to understand the communicator and is justified in complaining
if it doesn't. This brings out aggressive-defensive 'accusation and
rebuttal', not sensitive 'receptivity and responsiveness' to our inevitably
diverse and unique forms of individual expression. The challenge and
delight, to me, is to appreciate and negotiate with this diversity,
recognising my own and others' idiosyncrasies in conveying our meaning, and
deepening my learning through this negotiation. For a long while I haven't
felt I understood the language of 'action research', but that hasn't
prevented me from trying to relate with it. I have also struggled to
understand Alon's expressions (which I have seen invoke much intolerance),
but feel I have learned much from him in the process. The struggle for
understanding can itself be very educational, and great art often 'works'
through this means.
Linguistic totalitarianism (preservation of favoured codes in the struggle
for influence)is potentially stultifying (e.g. what I regard as the
'Dalekization' of scientific language) as with any other hegemonic practice
that produces monoculture. Perhaps acceptance of diverse forms of
expression, and a willingness to work with them in a spirit of creative
curiosity, enquiry and compassion, is a hallmark of living (evolutionary)
educational 'standards' and 'practice'.
This is not to say that authors should ignore their audience and not bother
to attune their transmission with their potential reception; more that
there is a need for more qualities of patience and allowance and respect
and enjoyment in all directions if truly creative, appreciative
conversation is to be possible. When a totalitarian audience meets a
totalitarian communicator, the result is dictatorship. Know-what-I-mean?
Warmest
Alan
--On 12 January 2007 09:52 +0000 Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Alan, it is ? 3 degrees here in Tagawa and the sky is like liquid
> crystal cobalt blue, just breath taking to look at. Oh well, sigh.... I
> only wish to clarify what may be my lack of clarification in that I am
> not suggesting that the imagery stands alone but is the starting point of
> the conversation. I am reminded of Jack’s story of knowing or checking
> your audience,. In this list for example I do not know who my audience
> is. I choose not to make assumptions as they are usually wrong. What I
> was intrigued about is the different starting points between Jack’s and
> my position of how we like to engage. It is this difference that should
> be explored to encourage the other to be represented. Academics I feel
> tend to become lazy in their efforts to communicate and get used to or
> educated to a certain standard of presentation. Hence my posting about
> level playing fields which Pip responded so eloquently too. Pushing
> oneself out of a comfort zone is perhaps the challenge. I am comfortable
> in chaos and complexity, I am very uncomfortable by orthodoxy and
> conformity, hence I live on a mountain top! I want to see non narrated
> clips of practice as I am comfortable with the loudness of silence, my
> language of choice is subliminal, words are such cages..smile. As my
> engagement with the non silent space of the excluded textual narrative, (
> using your speak!!) progress. I am free to heuristically immerse myself
> in the images and any learning; ideas that percolate to the surface are
> not tainted or influenced by what the other thinks I should see. I am
> then free to engage my meanings and understanding with others. At the
> same time I do understand Jack’s position and I move back to my ideas of
> inclusional space that celebrates differences. Now is that might be
> called an esoteric expectation or is it a form of communication that many
> outside of the western paradigm, find normal?
>
> Love to all Je Kan
|