--On 03 April 2008 16:17 +0100 Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> When Pete made the following posting of the 14th March 2008
[<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0803&L=bera-practitioner
-researcher&T=0&O=A&X=55577C08EA9842E192&Y=esspem%40bath.ac.uk&P=9573>] I
said that
> it would take me several weeks to respond. The response, following
> Pete's posting below, includes a keynote address from last Friday at the
> International Conference of Teacher Research (ICTR 2008) in New York and
> a video of the keynote made available today from the University of
> Bath's streaming server.
> mms://wms.bath.ac.uk/live/education/JackWhitehead_030408/jackkeynoteictr2
> 80308large.wmv
Jack -
Re: my Roderick - Horkheimer/Adorno quote "... Western reason as a
destructive force... the identity logic which is the fundamental structure
of Western reason. Human liberation could be conceived, if at all, only as
a complete break with mere formal rationality and instrumental reason ...."
I've just watched your address at
mms://wms.bath.ac.uk/live/education/JackWhitehead_030408/jackkeynoteictr280
308large.wmv
I saw it as a tour de force that, for me, communicates all that you said
you hoped to communicate. For me, the crux of the argument came just before
54 mins when you said: "... when I look at those statements made about me
and then you look here [clips of the 6-year-old action researchers] at what
really matters ..." At that point, I was able to hold at the same time a
sense of the qualities of the entirely separate (and disparate) worlds from
which the statements and the clips had come; at that point you showed me an
example of movement towards "...a complete break with mere formal
rationality and instrumental reason" and the form of a world to which such
a break might lead. Thank you!
- Pete
PS. You also ask:
> What I'd really appreciate are your responses to this latest account from
> my research programme into the nature of educational theory. I'm
> thinking of responses that relate to my belief that I've not only
> accepted the points in your posting of the 14th March. Have I also shown
> that I am accounting for/explaining my educational influences in
> relation to flows of life-affirming energy, a relationally dynamic
> awareness and gazes of recognition of the being of the other? I'm
> wondering about the validity of my claim that, like Eleanor in her
> Ph.D., the presentation, paper and video, constitute evidence of my love
> at work in education in an explanation of my educational influence?
Having just emerged from the diverting delights of a colonoscopy at the RUH
whose results are thankfully life-affirming in terms of my continuing
comfort and presence on this planet, I shall reuse your words and plead
that it will "take me several weeks to respond" - or, as someone else once
famously said - "I'll have to think about it" (source please Moira).
|