Yes,
I understand that one of the purposes of our
discussions is that we may influence funding bodies,
and decision-makers to take our practitioner rsearch
more seriously .....e.g. the RAE criteria for
quality.....can we lasso some of the standards of
judgement, and understandings of quality that emerge
from our discussions.....and relate them to the
criteria?
Blessings!
Brian
--- Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I smiled at your response, I have the choice to take
> offense or be
> engaged with the issue at hand, that of your
> enquiry. Offense is some
> thing we generate by ourselves. I can not offend you
> if you choose not
> to be offended. It is an internal response to a
> perceived set of values
> and judgments held by the individual belong and root
> din the internal
> construction of our life worlds. Yet we externalize
> it often blaming
> others for offending us rather than claiming the
> ownership and the
> teachings for our own enlightenment. So dear friend,
> no offense taken
> or even thought about.
>
> The wording of your reply interested me and between
> editing my
> colleagues submissions for our symposium, I just had
> to respond to you.
>
> You wrote;
> …more explicit, and accessible to decision-makers
> that we may wish to
> influence?
>
> I am extremely uncomfortable with concept of
> influence and I do
> understand that this may well be my Buddhist
> ontology kicking in, as we
> seek not to influence others rather to create
> sharing spaces of
> positive neutrality. In fact the very point you
> have raised is one
> that I need to explore as I struggle with the
> possibility that my
> influence may directly or indirectly violate, harm
> or distress another.
> Could you expand a bit more on what you mean?
> Love and respect
> Je Kan
>
>
> ,
>
> Quoting Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Yes,
> >
> > Thank you for that sensitive, but bolder response
> > Jack.
> >
> > I too watched the video Je Kan, and had a partial
> > understanding from my studies of religions. Thank
> you
> > for sharing with us.
> >
> > As a general comment may I say rather tentatively,
> and
> > I trust without giving offence........
> >
> > Do we need to make our presuppositions, our
> judgements
> > of worth and standards, and the knowledge we are
> > generating.......more explicit, and accessible to
> > decision-makers that we may wish to influence?
> >
> > regards
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Je Kan - I've just watched the 11.45 minute
> video
> >> clip of the Goma
> >> Fire ceremony and because I know you and have
> seen
> >> you practicing as
> >> a Buddhist priest in a temple in a local
> community
> >> in Japan as well
> >> as visited your mountainside temple I have some
> >> sense of the context
> >> of your practice and understand a little about
> the
> >> ceremonies of the
> >> Shingon Buddhist principles you practice. Without
> >> such an
> >> understanding I doubt if many viewers of the
> >> video-clip would
> >> understand your values and commitment from just
> >> watching the video.
> >> But I may be mistaken and my doubt could be
> >> inappropriate. This same
> >> is true about my feeling that the video-clips
> need
> >> to be connected to
> >> an analytic framework in a visual narrative to
> >> enable the viewers,
> >> especially from different cultures, to appreciate
> >> the significance of
> >> what is being done and shown. I'd really like to
> >> hear the responses
> >> of other viewers. I liked the way you make the
> clip
> >> available on
> >> different formats and the streaming video worked
> >> well.
> >> Love Jack.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Brian E. Wakeman
> > Education adviser
> > Dunstable
> > Beds
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Rev Je Kan Adler-Collins
> Assistant Professor of Nursing
> Fukuoka Prefectural University Faculty of Nursing
> Tagawa City
> Fukuoka Prefecture
> Japan
>
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
|