HI Alan

Thank you for your response. I would like to respond in more detail but time and circumstances are ....

For the moment, would you please be so good as to explain the contradiction that you see in the following  ...

"But this clear recognition of the figural presence of local dynamic boundaries/distinctions/interfacings [which is transcended by transfigural space]is inconsistent with the following:

 "I am understanding, in addition to the above, that all things and beings are energetically connected, and so there are no boundaries between anything or anyone.""

Thank you so much.
Joan

-----Original Message-----
From: Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper

Dear Joan,

Thank you for this carefully considered, reflective and informative
response.

Let me begin by saying that I greatly respect and appreciate 'Holism',
especially in the form expressed below. I was actually external examiner
for the MSc in Holistic Science at Schumacher College for 4 years, and
external adviser at its recent quinquennial review. So, I have nothing
AGAINST Holism - indeed, by its very nature, natural inclusionality (NI) is
not set up in opposition to or as an alternative to any other way of
thinking. In my conversations with holistic thinkers, I do however,
commonly experience two distinctive responses to my efforts to introduce
NI: either disinterest because NI is seen as 'the same as' holism and
therefore having nothing original of value to say, or rejection on the
grounds of being perceived as 'not the same as' holism. This contrasts a
little with the responses I generally get from 'reductionistic' thinkers,
which is to see NI as 'not the same as reductionism'.

Perhaps I could also add that NI came to me largely from personal
observations and working from first principles, not from scholarly
knowledge of holistic and reductive philosophy - much of which I have had
to pick up and reflect upon along the way. I might even say that (like my
art) it came as close to the 'out of the blueness' of 'absolute creativity'
as it is possible to get without declaring oneself independent from others'
influence! In many ways I would love simply to be able to offer NI to
others for consideration, without getting caught up in comparisons with
preceding philosophies. But I recognise that whether I like it or not,
people will make such comparisons, and I therefore have to be prepared to
try to show what I think-feel NI both has in common with those philosophies
and how it differs from them. This can be very hard work indeed, especially
on my own. There are huge language, logic and imagery pitfalls that I have
to try to circumvent as I try to explicate NI to people with diverse
backgrounds - yet who mostly have never had or been given reason to
question the foundational premises of abstract (definitive) rationality. I
have to try all sorts of ways of doing this - logically, poetically,
artistically, scientifically, descriptively, illustratively, etc, all the
while trying to relate my form of expression to the person or audience I am
in dialogue with.

Perhaps in relation to Smuts' Holism, as expressed below, I might describe
NI as 'transfigured Holism'. I could also describe NI as 'transfigured
reductionism'. Either way, what is vital is the inclusion of 'transfigural
space' in the origins and evolutionary diversification of natural form as
'flow-form', an energetic configuration of space in figure and figure in
space. This inclusion allows us to open up from the 'Wholeness' of 'Figures
Alone' (absolute independent singlenesses) to the 'Holeness' of mutually
inclusive figural form and transfigural space in co-creative, fluid
relationship and natural communion. Without this inclusion, our language,
logic and imagery gets trapped in internal inconsistency and paradox. This
is what I can see in what is written below as Smuts and you reach the
'threshold' of NI, clearly and obviously seeking that understanding, yet
held back from entering it by language, logic and imagery that doesn't
account for the difference between 'fluid distinction' and 'rigid
definition' and so cannot comprehend what infinity naturally means and
where it is naturally sourced.

As an experiment, you could try removing the 'w' from the 'wholes' and
'wholenesses' below, and reflect on what differences this might make to its
meaning.

The closest reach towards an expression of NI (and mathematical
transfigurality) that I find below is in the following passage:

 "All
> things overflow their structural limits, the inner Action transcends the
> outer structure, and there is thus a trend in things beyond themselves.
> This inner trend  in things springs from their essence as localized,
> imprisoned Action. From this follow two important conclusions. The first
> is the concept of things as more than their apparent structures, and
> their "fields" as complementary to their full operation and
> understanding. A thing does not come to a stop at its boundaries or
> bounding surfaces. It is overflowing Action, it passes beyond its bounds,
> and its surrounding "field" is therefore essential not only to its
> correct appreciation as a thing, but also to a correct understanding of
> things in general, and especially of the ways in which they affect each
> other."

But this clear recognition of the figural presence of local dynamic
boundaries/distinctions/interfacings [which is transcended by transfigural
space]is inconsistent with the following:

 "I am understanding, in addition to the above, that all things and beings
are energetically connected, and so there are no boundaries between
anything or anyone."



I am not trying to argue the point here, only to show how I think NI could
provide more adequate, less inconsistent logic, language and imagery of a
kind that can help us to understand how 'all things overflow their
structural limits', through the natural inclusion of transfigural space. It
allows us to make the imaginative 'involution' (turning outside-in) of
thought that 'we have been waiting for' and that I feel Smuts was reaching
for and that Ubuntu and similar indigenous philosophies imply but can't
express logically in conventional terms.

I hope this might help clarify why it makes sense to me to open the door
into natural inclusionality, through including the space that transcends
definition.


Warmest

Alan








--On 12 April 2010 08:14 +0200 Joan Lucy Conolly <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Alan ... and All Interested P-R's (Is that AIP? I think so ...)
>
> First, I apologise that this response has taken so long. As usual I have
> too much on my plate, or too many balls in the air, whichever metaphor
> you prefer. The result is running after the bus that I never catch! ...
> !!!!!!!
>
> Then, thank you for your mail. I appreciate you taking the time to voice
> your concern, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
>
> I have spent all this time mulling over your mail to establish exactly
> what I have implied that gives you reason for concern. I have looked
> again and again at the sentence "I find that I can deal with the chaos
> more constructively when I know that the chaos is merely that part of the
> whole which allows change and growth and learning that will find its own
> order before once more growing through yet another chaotic phase, and so
> on." And note that in my original note I contextualized this in Smuts'
> "Holism and Evolution".  I have also read your mail repeatedly, and the
> more that I read it, the more I am wondering if we are talking about the
> same notions in different words, which is so easy to do in these matters.
> (I find words are highly traitorous relayers of meaning but as they are
> all we have we just have to make do, not so?)
>
> So I am going to try to make my meaning clearer than before. And for
> those who have already read "Holism and Evolution" - and more - I beg
> your indulgence, and hope that you will add your interpretations.
>
> What I have learned about 'wholes', 'holism' and 'holistic' is drawn from
> "Holism and Evolution", written in 1926 by Smuts while he was leader of
> the SA opposition, in his 'science philosopher' persona. It was Smuts who
> conceived the notion of 'holism' and 'holistic', and created these terms.
> (I always smile when I read "This course is holistic." Or "We advise a
> holistic and healthy lifestyle." I am not always sure that the writer
> actually intends what she or he is saying. You will see what I mean in
> due course.)
>
> For the purposes of writing this mail, I have once more reread the
> original and once more I am filled with delight at the clarity of Smuts'
> thought and expression, the all encompassing embrace and the balance of
> his argument. (So thank you for prompting me to read this again!)
>
> In his book, Smuts argues and exemplifies the all embracing nature and
> operation of Holism, in all fields of human knowledge, ways of being and
> values. He includes all fields of science, viz. mathematics, chemistry,
> physics, biology, genetics, etc. but also includes psychology,
> literature, art, spirituality, religion, inter alia. He sees Holism in
> Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
>
> 'Wholes' page 102 : "We are all familiar in the domain of life with what
> is here called wholes. Every plant or animal, is a whole, with certain
> internal organization and a measure of self direction, and an individual
> specific character of its own. This is true of the lowest micro-organism
> no less than the most highly developed and complex human personality."
>
> General concept of holism, page 116.
> "Let me conclude with a word on nomenclature, intended to prevent
> ambiguity and misconception in the sequel. According to the view
> expounded in this chapter the whole in each individual case is the centre
> and creative source of reality. It is the real factor from which the rest
> in each case follows. But there is an infinity of such wholes comprising
> all grades of existence in the universe; and it becomes necessary to have
> a general term which will include all wholes under such a concept. For
> this the term Holism has been coined; Holism thus comprises all wholes in
> the universe. It is thus a concept and a factor: a concept standing for
> wholes, a factor because the wholes it denotes are the real factors in
> the universe. We speak of matter as including all particles of matter in
> the universe: in the same way we shall speak of Holism as including all
> wholes which are the ultimate creative centres of reality in the world.
>
> Difficulty may arise because Holism will sometimes also be used in
> another sense, to denote the theory of the universe. Thus while matter
> and spirit are taken as real or substantive factors, and material-ism and
> spiritual-ism or ideal-ism as concepts and theories in reference to them
> respectively, it would be by analogy not be improper to use the term
> Hol-ism to express the view that the ultimate reality of the universe is
> neither matter nor spirit but wholes as defined in this book. And
> sometimes Holism will be used in that wider sense as a theory of reality.
> But its primary and proper use is to denote the totality of wholes which
> operate as real factors and give to reality its dynamic evolutionary
> creative character. No confusion need arise if these two distinct
> applications of the term are borne in mind."
>
> Page 327: In the chapter titled "The Holistic Universe" Smuts writes "All
> things overflow their structural limits, the inner Action transcends the
> outer structure, and there is thus a trend in things beyond themselves.
> This inner trend  in things springs from their essence as localized,
> imprisoned Action. From this follow two important conclusions. The first
> is the concept of things as more than their apparent structures, and
> their "fields" as complementary to their full operation and
> understanding. A thing does not come to a stop at its boundaries or
> bounding surfaces. It is overflowing Action, it passes beyond its bounds,
> and its surrounding "field" is therefore essential not only to its
> correct appreciation as a thing, but also to a correct understanding of
> things in general, and especially of the ways in which they affect each
> other."
>
> I have learned about 'Wholism' from my friends, Banakonda Kennedy Kish
> Bell (Anishnabe-Ojibway) and Diane Hill (Mohawk) (inter alia) who have
> explained this notion to me as central to their understanding of all
> things. 'Wholism' embraces an understanding of the clearly identifiable
> functions and capacities of each of the four directions of
> north/south/east/west. From this I understand that all operations benefit
> from the inclusion of all at all times. For instance, the education of
> the First Nations people is predicated on the 'Four Directions' so that
> all of the physical, the mental, the emotional and the spiritual aspects
> are included in all educational enterprises. So it is that Diane teaches
> courses for Native Social Services Workers which are awarded by St
> Lawrence College in Kingston, Ontario. These courses equip people to work
> within the native communities in the context of their belief systems, and
> the understandings of their ways of being. It is these kinds of
> interactions which I prize highly as they have contributed to my
> realization of the importance of 'perspective;, 'lens' and 'worldview',
> as a way of reminding myself that there are many worldviews with long and
> wise traditions of understanding. When I talk about 'wholes' and
> 'wholism' I am very aware of how Diane and Banakonda and my other First
> Nations Friends have a very specific way of understanding this. My
> understanding of this 'Wholism' is further enhanced by the "Prayer of
> Thanksgiving" which is performed at both the beginning and end of all
> functions and gatherings. The "Prayer of Thanksgiving" very carefully and
> particularly thanks Creator for every possible element of the creation -
> without exclusion of any kind. The "Prayer of Thanksgiving" is led by a
> member for the community while the rest of the community responds in
> assurance at the end of each statement of gratitude : "In this we are of
> one mind". My experience of this has included ceremonies as short as
> twenty minutes, and as long as 45 minutes. I have never been to a pow-wow
> where Diane assures me that the prayer can be much longer. From this I
> understand that 'Wholism' as understood and lived by the First Native
> Peoples of my acquaintance is as inclusive as it is possible to be. I am
> cc-ing this mail to Diane, so that she can respond if she wishes. Thank
> you, Diane.
>
> When I write ... "I find that I can deal with the chaos more
> constructively when I know that the chaos is merely that part of the
> whole which allows change and growth and learning that will find its own
> order before once more growing through yet another chaotic phase, and so
> on." .... I am taking all of the above - and much more - into account. I
> am understanding, in addition to the above, that all things and beings
> are energetically connected, and so there are no boundaries between
> anything or anyone. And that this is actually why I embrace the notion
> that we are all included in everything that happens to everyone, that we
> are connected in time-space in ways the minutiae of which I do not
> understand, and perhaps never will. It suffices for me that this makes
> sense of my lived experience up to this point. So when I talk about
> 'chaos' I am talking about the disorder that characterizes my day-to-day
> being from time to time. When I talk about cosmos, I am referring to
> those periods when things in my day-to-day existence have more orderly
> balance and rhythm, rather than less - for which I am grateful. So it is
> that when my life is stress-filled I can look at what I can learn, look
> to my growth and development in the situation, and be grateful. I can see
> the rhythm and balance, the ultimate order and cosmos of life in its 'ups
> and downs'. I see, and embrace, the complementarity of the 'chaos' and
> the 'cosmos'. I recognize all of this as 'self-organizing'. In other
> words I can see Holism as 'self organizing', and that it is applicable to
> all things and beings. I find this understanding enriches, and is in sync
> with, my understanding of 'Ubuntu' (I am because of others) and
> Ukuhlonipha (respect for all in the creation) and 'The Prayer of
> Thanksgiving'. I can see that this understanding enriches, and is in sync
> with, ALL my understandings of the oral tradition, and indigenous
> knowledge systems, and all other knowledge systems. I believe that my
> 'wholes' are changing with the 'holism' of the process, just as those of
> people and things in all the universe. I believe that ALL our wholes are
> part of this seamless, energetically interconnected holistic process,
> which operates inclusively in space-time, and connects me to all the
> universe, and all in it, in a flow of energy which manifests in 'love my
> neighbor as myself'.
>
> And all this yet again confirms my enthusiasm for Self Study, Living
> Theories Methodologies, Auto-ethnographies and Visual Methodologies in
> our research endeavours.
>
> Alan, I hope that you can see that I am neither resentful, nor
> entrenched. I believe that I understand things in much the way that you
> do, but simply use different words, perspectives, lenses and worldviews.
>
> I also hope, Alan, that this has addressed your concerns about me, and my
> way of understanding things.
>
> Thanks for listening ... everyone who has got this far in a very very
> long mail.
>
> Take care
> Joan
> PS I always thought that Wordsworth had it nailed!
> PPS By the way, do you know the ethno-mathematics of Paulus Gerdes? I
> think that you might find him interesting.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Practitioner-Researcher
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner
> (BU Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
>
> Dear Joan,
>
> I am not sure whether and how to respond honestly to what you have
> written below. I feel I should respond because I detect a problem in it,
> in the use of wholistic language and logic that I feel could actually be
> getting in the way of what you are striving to express and accomplish. My
> anxiety about responding to the use of wholistic language and logic is
> that I know my responses can elicit resentment and entrenchment instead
> of fulfilling my intention of openly inviting deeper exploration of what
> I am trying to communicate.
>
> The problem arose for me as I read the following sentence (especially
> within the context of the two sentences preceding it):
>
> "I find that I can deal with the chaos more constructively when I know
> that the chaos is merely that part of the whole which allows change and
> growth and learning that will find its own order before once more growing
> through yet another chaotic phase, and so on."
>
> Here is my problem. I hope I can present this to you in an inviting way,
> which comes from my respect and admiration for your work and a desire to
> assist, not criticize.
>
> Nothwithstanding its proximity to my understandings of natural
> inclusionality, I am aware that the logic and language of the above
> sentence is definitive and so is inconsistent with what you most value in
> the oral tradition and Ubuntu. To my mind it is therefore not appropriate
> to your intention and entraps you paradoxically in the very abstract
> (objective) rationality you are seeking release from, at the same time as
> setting up grounds for adversarial thought and positioning.
>
> By their very nature, definitive language and logic - whether reductive
> or holistic - wittingly deny or unwittingly overlook the influence of a
> vital presence that is literally crucial to understanding natural energy
> flow and perceiving 'self as neighbourhood'. They do so in one way or
> another through their focus on 'discrete figures' as definable
> individuals or groups, 'parts' and 'wholes', which disregards the natural
> 'flow of place-time'. They do not recognise William Wordsworth's poetic
> vision and wisdom in saying: 'In Nature everything is distinct, yet
> nothing defined into absolute, independent singleness'.
>
> One of the possibilities I feel 'natural inclusionality' can offer is a a
> more naturally fluid and open logical foundation and language that is
> consistent with the poetic vision and wisdom of OT and Ubuntu and doesn't
> set up grounds for opposition and conflict (those grounds come from the
> abstract rationality of the law of the excluded middle). It isn't about
> 'making space', it is about 'including space' in all natural, variably
> viscous flow-form, where local 'self-identity' comes into being in the
> context of natural neighbourhood as 'the included middle'.
>
> Here are two paragraphs from a paper I am currently drafting with my
> Nigerian friend and mathematician, Lere Shakunle, which might provide an
> insight into what needs to be included (by way of the 'transfigural in
> and throughout the figural') in this more natural logic and language:
>
> "What truly is continuous, and hence a limitless, invisible (i.e.
> 'appearing' transparent or dark, depending on situation) indivisible
> presence that does not stop start  at physical 'boundaries' is mentally
> either omitted entirely or cut up into discrete packages coextensive with
> each figure. In other words, space is either excluded or occluded by an
> excommunicative mental act of axiomatic definition that imposes complete
> closure or enclosure around a self-contained singularity of 'One' as an
> individual or group that has no access from or to others in its
> neighbourhood. Correspondingly all conventional mathematical proofs are
> self-fulfilling prophecies of the initial discontinuous framing of the
> figures they refer to - i.e. they are 'self-referential' in a way that is
> exposed by the paradox of the Cretan liar in which an inhabitant of Crete
> claims that all Cretans are liars (Dawson, 2009)."
>
>
>
> "At the philosophical core of transfigural mathematics [and natural
> inclusionality] is the recognition of two distinct but mutually inclusive
> and co-creative kinds of dynamic influence at work in the cosmos: figural
> and transfigural. Figural influence is energetic, resistive and brings
> local distinctiveness - but never complete discreteness - to natural,
> variably viscous flow-form. Transfigural influence is non-resistive,
> spatial and present everywhere, without limit. Transfigural influence can
> be thought of implicitly as spreading radially, from 'zero identity
> centres' (called 'zeroids' in transfigural mathematics, see below)
> distributed everywhere, although this radial influence cannot be
> manifested explicitly without figural influence. Figural influence can be
> thought of as distributed tangentially with respect to transfigural
> influence, in fluid boundaries or energetic interfacings that distinguish
> but do not isolate inner world from outer world. Whereas transfigural
> influence is receptive, figural presence which includes space that
> includes it through the transfigural is reflective and responsive, so
> providing scope for a vast variety of flow-form to emerge as
> energetic/fluid configurations of space in figure and figure in space."
>
>
>
>
>
> I do hope this may be helpful for you and others on this list.
>
>
> Warmest
>
> Alan
>
> PS The attached painting may offer an insight into where my sense of
> affinity with indigenous African cosmology may have come from.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan Lucy Conolly" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
>
>
> Dear Jack
>
> I am now reading the whole of your AERA paper again. And noting what it is
> specifically that I like about it. There is so much. I think that what is
> most important to me is that it carries a positive and affirming energy in
> so many ways.
>
> I also like the fact that you express ways in which we take responsibility
> for what we do. On page 2, para 2, line 1, you identify the Academy as
> '(the global collection of Higher Education Institutions)'. I like that
> identification because I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the
> demands of the 'Academy' and find myself more comfortable with the notions
> of 'Scholarship'. When I reflect on this distinction, I can see that I am
> influenced by Boyer - "Scholarship Reconsidered", and also by the notion
> that, for me, 'Scholarship' is independent of any specific institution or
> groups of institutions. For me, 'Scholarship' is an institution of its
> own, without walls and all that that implies. Perhaps this is so because
> I am mindful of scholars who, following a time honoured tradition, still
> 'wander' carrying their - metaphorical or real - 'chairs' on their backs,
> and settle wherever there is an audience, and stay to converse for only
> as long as the audience is present. How else could they have 'educational
> influence'?  I like the spontaneity of the practice. I like its
> 'naturalness', its organic nature, its authenticity. And I ask myself
> "How can I use my educational influence to support and develop instances
> of spontaneous, organic and authentic scholarship in the academy?"
> Because if I could do that I would be very grateful. It would give me joy.
>
> (When I reread this before sending, I am beginning to wonder if TEDTALKS
> is not a space for modern itinerant scholars to set down their 'chairs'
> for a bit? Ken Robinson. Adichie Chimamanda. Sugatra Mita. Mae Jemison.
> Margaret Wertheimer. Karen Armstrong. It certainly feels that way to me.)
>
> On page 3, para 1, lines 3/4, you mention "the conceptual, methodological
> and practical challenges and opportunities inherent in understanding how
> and what people learn." When I think of what I have learned in respect of
> each of the "conceptual, methodological and practical" in my
> preoccupations with the Oral Tradition of knowledge, whether indigenous
> or otherwise (at which point I pause and ask myself "What and when is
> knowledge not indigenous?" and because that is a long and convoluted
> debate in and of itself, which is too long to accommodate here, I
> conclude that for the purposes of this comment, I will simply talk about
> the 'Oral Tradition' (OT) as distinct from the 'Literate Tradition'
> (LT).) (Whew!!) because it is precisely the "conceptual, methodological
> and practical challenges and opportunities inherent in understanding how
> and what people learn" through OT that is important. I think that this is
> important because there is so much in the way that we all learn, teach
> and assess that is essentially that of the OT. In fact, everything we
> learn, teach and assess has to go through the process of orality to reach
> its literate record and expression, given that orality is all those ways
> of conceiving, recording and expressing without scribal alphabetic
> writing. We all do these things all the time, and we do it all very well
> without really understanding what it is that we are doing, because it is
> innate. And I do mean 'we', because this is an anthropological capacity.
> So by viewing what we do in these processes from an OT perspective, with
> an OT lens, and with an OT world view, we have a better understanding of
> what it is that we are doing. When we understand then we will be able to
> answer the question "How do I improve my practice?" in new ways that
> might give us new insights. In addition to many other sources on this
> topic, I have been specifically influenced by Frederick Turner's writing
> ...
> 1986     Performed Being: Word Art as a Human Inheritance. Oral Tradition,
> 1/1: 66-109.
>
> 1991    Toward an Evolutionary Ontology of Beauty. Oral Tradition, 6/1
> (1991): 126-129.
>
> Turner, F and Poppel, E n.d.    The Neural Lyre: Poetic Meter, The Brain,
> And Time. http://www.joelorr.com/neural.htm
>
> These insights have helped me to address the complexity of ecologies that
> I am faced with in an increasingly complex and challenging world.
>
> Do I see these complexities being addressed in the research of individual
> action researchers? Indeed I do. In every living theories thesis, but also
> every meeting of SeStuTHE at DUT is a revelation - and we now have five
> two hour sessions weekly! I am hoping that the NMMU meeting in August will
> reveal some of this. I can see the positive difference that using
> Self-Study and Living Theories Methodologies has made to the
> 'appropriacy', 'authenticity' and 'personal authority' of the SeStuTHE
> researchers at DUT. I think of it like this, "When I find my own voice, I
> can speak. The more I speak with my own voice, the more value I can
> share." This motivation is not only cognitive, but also affective. And I
> am inclined to ask "How can the cognitive be separated from the affect?
> Or are they inseparably
> intertwined?" I think that they are. I am supported in this belief by the
> work, inter alia, of Candace Pert, the biophysicist who identified the
> existence and operation of neuropeptide transmitters as long ago as 1972.
> The account of her discovery, is accessibly recounted in "Molecules of
> Emotion" - A Great Read! The indications of inseparable
> 'cognitive-affective' learning are clear and unambiguous in the science of
> Candace Pert.
>
> The distinction between 'education research' and 'educational research' is
> also a key factor in the enthusiasm at DUT for what we are doing in
> SeStuTHE. I like its inclusionality, but I also like the way that it
> makes a space for holistic processes that move naturally between cosmos
> and chaos on an ongoing basis in the ways identified and explained by
> Smuts in "Holism and Evolution" (1987). I find reassurance in the
> explanation that Smuts provides. I find that I can deal with the chaos
> more constructively when I know that the chaos is merely that part of the
> whole which allows change and growth and learning that will find its own
> order before once more growing through yet another chaotic phase, and so
> on.
>
> I so like the distinction that you make between the "living approach" and
> the "linguistic approach" (page 6, para 1, line 1/2). Your words here
> remind me of Marcel Jousse when he says
>
> "If a person's life could be summarized in a single sentence, and if I
> wanted to sum up my life as a scientific Traditionist, I would simply say:
> "I have been a resistance fighter against bookish and dead Philology".
>
> The fact is that all the studies our young people undertake under the
> disconcerting term 'humanities', are based on fossilised, philological
> theories.
>
> Linguistic methods are philological methods.
>
> Exegetic methods are philological methods.
>
> Psychiatric methods were philological methods - until the great Morlaâs."
> (Anthropology of Geste and Rhythm, 2000:44)
>
> When you talk about "why we do what we do" (page 7, para 2, line 3, I am
> reminded of the questions we routinely ask in SeStuTHE based on Brown's 7
> questions in "About writing", a chapter in "Quality in Post Graduate
> Education" edited by Zuber Skerritt and Yoni Ryan. The seven questions are
> (my paraphrase as I do not have the source with me here.)
>
> 1. What did I do?
> 2. Why did I do it?
> 3. What happened?
> 4. What does this tell me about my practice?
> 5. What does this tell me about my theory?
> 6. How does my reader read this?
> 7. What remains unresolved?
>
> I find that these questions, answered factually in bite-size pieces (50
> word responses), address your question "How do I improve what I am
> doing?" with immediate and useful responses. We are able then to reflect
> critically on what we have written, which expands our understanding of
> what we are writing, and what we are writing about, which then enables us
> to write more fully and reflectively.
>
> It is also Brown in "About writing" who says that writing in the first
> person ensures taking responsibility for what we write. I have found this
> profoundly true of myself. I find that if I cannot write in the first
> person, I stop. On reflection, I find invariably that I am not
> sufficiently sure of myself, and need 'to do more - acting - thinking -
> reading' until I can write in the first person with confidence. I also
> find this true of the writing   of my students whom I supervise.
>
> In short, I find the process of observation and reflection on the self -
> in a scientific way - useful. "The true laboratory is the laboratory of
> the self. To instruct oneself is to develop oneself. Only the individual
> can know himself, whence today the ever-increasing awareness of the role
> of living memory and of its omnipresent adjuvant, rhythm." (Jousse,
> 2000:27)
>
> When I can see what I am doing when I am learning - or not learning, then
> I am able to see more clearly what others are doing when they are
> learning - or not learning. This helps me address what I can do to
> improve. When I can feel and see and hear that I have a positive
> educational influence, I love what I do even more!
>
> Once again, I really have enjoyed reading your AERA paper again, Jack.
> Thank you. The people who will be privileged to hear it at the conference
> are most fortunate.
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to chat ..
>
> Take care
> Joan
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Practitioner-Researcher
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack
> Whitehead Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Your AERA paper
>
> On 4 Apr 2010, at 13:18, Joan Lucy Conolly wrote:
>
>> Dear Jack
>>
>> Here is the resend ... this is what Alan was referring to ...
>>
>> I hope that you get it this time.
>> Joan
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Joan - got it.  I like the criteria for rigour - They will complement
> Richard Winter's six criteria - the more individuals (and validation
> groups) can focus on using these criteria the more they will help to
> enhance the qualities of validity and rigour in the self-study/action
> research accounts. I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of
> such criteria can be part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use
> of language.  I'll ask him.
>
> Just about to have a Sunday roast dinner - Rebecca and Simon have come
> round and Rebecca is waiting, non too patiently for the arrival of her
> first offspring!
>
> Love Jack.
>
> "This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click
> http://www.dut.ac.za"
>
>
> "This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click
> http://www.dut.ac.za"
>

"This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click http://www.dut.ac.za"