I've just enjoyed reading Pete's latest contribution. I liked the
clarity of the communication in working towards the elucidation of
the form of living standards of judgment. I felt myself focusing on
'It is possible to describe/depict/represent those attributes and
modes of enquiry that encourage the co-generation of standards of
judgment'. I'd like to understand more about the co-generation of
standards in practitioner-research. For example, I know that Eden
expressed his originality of mind in generating the standards of
judgment of Ubuntu, guiltless recognition and societal
reidentification. I think I know what Pete means by co-generation in
the sense that in comprehending Eden, readers must generate their
understandings of Eden's meanings. In legitimating Eden's thesis in
the Academy, with his original standards of judgment I can see that
the standards have been co-generated in the sense that they are only
flowing through web-space in a doctoral thesis because the standards
have been understood by both Eden and the examiners.
As I use the standards created by Eden and seek to extend their
influence I can see that we are co-generating the standards that can
be used by others and can contribute to the education of social
formations. I believe Pete's insight that we cannot say what such
standards of judgment are, but that we can show each other the
meanings of our standards, is profoundly significant for practitioner-
researchers who are producing explanations for their educational
influences in learning. I'm thinking here of the significance of
practitioner-researchers showing their embodied meanings of the
expression of social justice, integrity, care, compassion, love,
freedom, respect, ubuntu, gift creation, societal reidentification
and guiltless recognition (as well as the expression of other values
together with the procedural principles of democracy). I know how
easy it is for points to be missed in each others' postings and I do
hope that the claims I made in yesterday's posting stimulate your
interest in responding:
"1) Living standards of judgment have been generated by practitioner-
researchers in the theses
below that have established a new epistemology for educational
knowledge. The standards are
consistent with Schon’s call for a new epistemology for the new
scholarship from action research.
2) These living standards of judgment have been generated in 5
doctoral theses below with
graduations between September 2006 and July 2007, during the course
of this year’s e-seminar."
I thought you would enjoy Eden's Section 3 on Ubuntu, Barbara, I
found Eden's artistry in his drawings particularly inspiring. Also
just to say how much I agree with postings that point to the
importance of avoiding indoctrination and imposition. One of the
reasons I like the idea of individuals generating their own
explanations of their educational influences in learning, is that
these rest on the creativity of each individual and are resistant to
the imposition of anyone elses' theoretical framework, while freely
drawing insights from such frameworks in the creation of their own
personal theories. And now to celebrate Eden's graduation today in Bath!
Love Jack.
On 27 Jun 2007, at 10:47, Peter Mellett wrote:
> Jack -
>
> Our last conversation helped me to add the next step to my attempt to
> elucidate the form of living standards of judgment. . . . The
> progression
> currently runs as follows (using my best Tractatus-esque mode of
> linear
> reasoning):
>
> * We cannot say what a standard of judgment is.
>
> * We cannot describe standards of judgment using propositional
> forms of
> language and logic.
>
> * Within a dialogical and inclusional conversation with another, we
> know
> when we have agreed a standard of judgment and applied it to the
> matter on
> hand: it enables each of us to say "I now know that you understand
> what I
> mean".
>
> * We co-generate living standards of judgment as we enquire into
> our forms
> of life and share them within educational action enquiries.
>
> * Collaborators within an action enquiry agree standards of
> judgment in
> order to progrees their enquiry.
>
> * There are certain positive personal attributes and certain
> appropriate
> modes of enquiry that dispose people to being able to collaborate
> within an
> action enquiry and to co-generate the standards of judgment
> required to
> confirm that current aspect of the enquiry as being educational.
>
> * It is possible to describe/depict/represent those attributes and
> modes of
> enquiry that encourage the co-generation of standards of judgment.
>
> * What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence (but
> that, dear
> Ludwig, does not mean we can't try to SHOW each other what we mean
> by using
> webcams, Facebook and other such e-delights not available to you in
> 1917).
>
>
> - Pete
|