RE-How often has someone 'picked it up the wrong way'.

You check this. You ask the hearer/reader to clarify back what he/she  
understood or better yet, you see what he/she has understood from the  
reply.  If he/she is wrong about what you said, you gently correct  
him/her.  The important thing is to engage and dialogue rather than  
make linguistic propositional assertions.  This is what a conversation  
is all about, checking how your meanings are being understood and  
adding to them.  Whilst doing so, you reflect both individually and as  
group collaboration.  You admit mistakes and are open, authentic,  
humble and engaging. It is an art that is very worthwhile mastering.   
But as Gadamer and Collingwood pointed out, we are not ready for it.   
Had we were, I would not have had that much problem with finding  
academic hosts for my post-propositional critical psychology postdoc.  
I worked very hard at it over the last decade.  I am checking it and  
doing it now. Alon



Quoting Deirdre Flood <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Alon
>
> Thank-you for your response because I've remembered that I've taken
> something for granted in my own experience in using video with the group I
> am involved with in Special Olympics that I first noticed at the beginning.
>
> You are absolutely right that people do not behave naturally and
> authentically when filmed when the camera is something that you point at
> them for the first time or even a couple of times.
>
> However, I've been using video on a sustained basis over a period of a year
> with my group in a fully informed and ethical way with consent from everyone
> including the athletes themselves.  In fact I was able to use video to
> communicate to the athletes what I was trying to accomplish with that group
> which involved the production of a training video for volunteers.  The use
> of video assisted me in delivering a multimedia form of my ethics statement
> precisely because the concern was that some athletes would have difficulty
> comprehending my plain language ethics statement.
>
> What I found is that over time, the camera became a norm in this environment
> and was literally ignored thereby granting me what I believe was an
> authentic and natural point of view through the lens of the camera.  I could
> validate this because I knew the group for four years before I introduced
> the camera and could relate to what normal behaviour looked like.   Also
> because  I am part of the group there is a trusting relationship already
> established and therefore the space is safe because I have control over that
> recording material and it certainly would not be published without due
> consideration on the internet.
>
> I think that this reservation or consideration thats given to what is
> published on the internet in visual form is an acknowledgement of the power
> of the medium itself.  We all have no problem communicating across an open
> forum using email and our words will remain out there forever just the
> same.  However the weight in this principle when applied to a visual
> expression of ourselves is really not the same because we are communicating
> more than just words.
>
> Showing clips of ourselves out of context absolutely can be a disaster and
> damaging but so too can words when taken selectively or edited from
> a narrative of text.   That is why I believe its so important to integrate
> the two together to assist in making the context clear which I think can be
> done through the way a person approaches their research and the values
> they espouse.
>
> I used an online blog to record my reflective journals on my experience and
> I found the process to be a fantastic way to express my thoughts and
> reflections which came in a flow of writing.  Making sense of it later is a
> whole other story though!  However if I had to make a video diary I would
> not have worked for me in the same way.. I would have been thinking about
> what I looked like not what I was saying.  I therefore  value writing and
> the written dialectic because I'm focused on the words and their meanings
> and sometimes it provides a less complicated frame of reference because
> there are no other signals confusing my interpretation.  However equally
> sometimes those additional signals are very helpful as it can be difficult
> to communicate emotion over email for example.  How often has someone
> 'picked it up the wrong way'.
>
> For me I guess the context is key and I agree that a therapeutic environment
> would lend itself to writing and blogging and using video in a very safe
> space so with an understanding of your context I know where you are coming
> from.
>
> I just think there is a place for video and multimedia forms in research in
> a blended approach in general and particularly Living educational theory.
>
> I look forward to reading about the influences in your research Alon.
>
> Take care
> Best Regards
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 20 May 2011 13:08, Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Deirdre,
>>
>> The problem is that I do not believe people will behave naturally and
>> authentically when filmed and when knowing that their filmed behaviour will
>> be made and kept public for all and for all to observe.  We all want to
>> appear good and to be liked.
>>
>> In my postdoc applications, I suggested 'filming and presenting the films
>> to the group and in the groups' discussion' precisely to identify and
>> discuss non-verbal gestures as part of the group's discussion or even
>> anti-racism therapy. The space is safe and zealously protected as such by
>> myself and the moderators.  It is a therapeutic safe and intimate space for
>> self-care so I work hard to ensure individuals feeling secure and safe in
>> the very protected group.
>>
>> But it all boils down to the above point of people's natural and authentic
>> behaviour.  I know I think of what I say and do extra carefully when I am
>> filmed and recorded. I rarely agree to just be placed in the internet in an
>> open to all website that is not even embodied - e.g., youtube.  I do not
>> wish what I say in one context and time to be used against me in twenty
>> years time in another context.  Once you put something in the Internet, it
>> is there for ever and cannot be retrieved.  It is being duplicated.
>>
>> Another problem is showing films/clips as evidence out of context or in
>> another context.  This can be disaster.
>>
>> In my own AR method, I suggest logging privately for oneself on the train
>> or at home and then making it public as blogging to a very selective support
>> therapy group of critical friends that can be changed at will.  There are
>> legal contracts to be signed by the users/participants.  I think this can be
>> more authentic than displaying clips to all.
>>
>> Sickness-unto-death is good.  It makes us change.  My tool is based on
>> individuals' feeling sick and then going to change selves and the world.  I
>> am influenced by Kierkegaard and the Existentialists.
>>
>> Quoting Deirdre Flood <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Folks
>>>
>>> I am a Masters student using LET as my methodology in my thesis and I've
>>> been following the debate with great interest when of course it has
>>> remained
>>> focused on the debate itself and not personalities.
>>>
>>> Alon, I can't help but respond to your  comment ie.
>>> *'Now I can either use words and send you this account or send you a clip
>>> where I become green and vomit.  Which is more meaningful and less
>>> ambiguous?  I could have just eaten something bad'*
>>> **
>>> You see I really don't see it as one or the other i.e. words or video for
>>> example. The use of both can eliminate ambiguity.   A person can use words
>>> to beautifully transform something on paper that isn't real just the same.
>>> Yes you can of course provide a written account and written evidence which
>>> convinces the reader but you can also provide valid visual evidence too.
>>>
>>> Dialogue  occurs in actual conversation between people and the engagement
>>> of
>>> all of a persons senses during that conversation provides a far richer
>>> feedback system in terms of communication and comprehension.   Video can
>>> be
>>> used to capture this interchange and the unspoken signals which, by the
>>> way,
>>> I am not necessarily referring to as life affirming energy.   I mean
>>> peoples
>>> expressions, how close they stand to someone, their body language the
>>> emotion they use when they speak, their accent, their mannerisms which all
>>> can betray a persons being-ness in the world.
>>>
>>> Put it this way and I'm trying to do this in a light hearted humorous
>>> way..
>>> You can tell me you feel sick to your stomach about something, you can
>>> even
>>> produce written evidence about what you've done that proves this.
>>>  However,
>>> within an authentic context that tests your convictions and I actually saw
>>> you go green and vomit (using your example) it would be then at that
>>> moment that  I would truly believe you.
>>>
>>> I see the dialectic as the primary mechanism by which to develop, analyse
>>> and engage in argument and produce research. It is a very effective and
>>> universally accepted way to do this.  However by drawing on the
>>> affordances
>>> of other forms of media as support  it can help to transform the words on
>>> a
>>> page into a contextual form of realism which gives strength to the
>>> dialectic argument.  I don't see why this does not work in harmony.
>>>
>>> The point as I see it in real life it doesn't matter how we express
>>> ourselves once we do it in a way that can be comprehended by the people we
>>> are trying to communicate to.   If you don't speak someone's language an
>>> expression e.g. a simile or gesture can transfer meaning.
>>>
>>> To bring this into the research context,  I think that the use of
>>> multimedia
>>> must be fully integrated to make sure that there is nothing ambiguous,
>>> nothing is left hanging as you suggested too, and written, spoken, and
>>> visual forms complement each other and assist in transforming information
>>> into knowledge. But I believe that is part of the rigorous process by
>>> which
>>> you commit to undertake and present the research itself.
>>>
>>> Finally Alon, I am finding your research very interesting reading in the
>>> short time I have available whilst I finish my own studies.  I also
>>> seriously hope you don't turn green and vomit any time soon :o)
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Deirdre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 May 2011 10:41, Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sara,
>>>>
>>>> I am slowly and surely reading your entry, having sent proposals for
>>>> anti-racism education to their destinations.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Freire when he stresses that language comes with action and
>>>> I'll add values.
>>>>
>>>> I truly hate racism.  It sickens me to my stomach quite literally.
>>>> This is my value and political engagement/commitment statement and
>>>> intention.  My ontology is a person who is sickens by racism.  Doing
>>>> something active against racism and educating against racism gives
>>>> meaning
>>>> to my ontology and defines it.  My intention is to educate against racism
>>>> and do it well.  My action is to show the racist how little insecure,
>>>> miserable and weak he/she is.  This is obviously also grounded in
>>>> history.
>>>>  What was accepted four decades ago is frowned on and illegal nowadays so
>>>> my
>>>> task is easier now.
>>>>
>>>> In my work and practice and praxis I develop my tool to fight racism and
>>>> discrimination.  I act.  Without acting it is all bla, bla, bla, as
>>>> Freire
>>>> puts it and idle talk or yakking as I put it.  Without action, which is
>>>> political, value-laden, economic and history bounded, there is no meaning
>>>> to
>>>> language. It is idle and a bore. Without communication and verbalisation,
>>>> the action is not directed and guided properly and not as powerful as it
>>>> could be.  Of course relational collaboration and dialogue is most
>>>> essential
>>>> to the action.  This is verbal and ongoing.  We continue with the
>>>> dialogue
>>>> until we understand each other and our meaning.  This is dialectical and
>>>> dynamic.  I discuss dialogue in my thesis, as much as I could in a short
>>>> 90k
>>>> thesis.
>>>>
>>>> Now I can either use words and send you this account or send you a clip
>>>> where I become green and vomit.  Which is more meaningful and less
>>>> ambiguous?  I could have just eaten something bad.
>>>> Alon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify that in my thesis I criticised in details the youtube
>>>>
>>>>> method to which LET was transformed from autoethnography.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re- This is what watching real human beings, being with one another, (in
>>>>> real time or on film),
>>>>>
>>>>> Real human beings cannot be reduced to films.  For a start because
>>>>> filming misses on smell (very important), taste and touch.  It merely
>>>>> covers seeing and hearing.  Hardly sufficient.  Also, there is the
>>>>> question of
>>>>> human behaviour in front of camera.  Not asking permission is unethical
>>>>> and I think illegal.  People like to be portrayed favourable in front
>>>>> of a camera and this hinders natural behaviour.
>>>>> I offered an alternative of dialectically enquiring-within-b/logging
>>>>> into the question, how do I lead a more fulfilling, meaningful and
>>>>> secure existence and relationships in, with and towards the world for
>>>>> myself?  I argue this method to be more profound and analytic in the
>>>>> phenomenological analysis and processing of ontolological experiences
>>>>> and values. I discuss this AR method in details and try to develop it
>>>>> into postdoc project that will popularise it and legitimate it further.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thesis was a very practical suggestion of a dialectical AR method
>>>>> that I think is superior to LET in the studying of human existence and
>>>>> human subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2009 was told by an Internal Reader who was reading a previous and
>>>>> very different draft why I criticise LET for doing something that it
>>>>> did not intend to.  But then in the LET homepage, it is described as an
>>>>> approach to human existence.  My thesis tries to transform it into a
>>>>> superior 'AR approach to human existence'.  One that better delves
>>>>> into, identifies and processes ontological experiences of human being
>>>>> in the world.
>>>>> Alon
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting "Salyers, Sara M" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alon and All...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alon wrote:
>>>>>> "My main disagreement with LET is with the point that verbal   language
>>>>>> cannot express ontology that therefore requires   audio-visual youtube
>>>>>> clips.  Then,
>>>>>> the problem of course is that audio-visual clips only cover seeing
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> hearing.  What about smell, taste and touch?  I think efforts   need to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> made to express oneself verbally.
>>>>>> ...I keep seeing the most amazing examples of creative writing and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most amazing creative writing tutors."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boy, this conversation is forcing me to to reflect and clarify more
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> more deeply! It is very hard work and I thank you for making  me   do
>>>>>> it!  I
>>>>>> think, as one who is profoundly in love with the  beauty  and power of
>>>>>> language, I can empathize with what you say.   Actually,  in terms of
>>>>>> precise definition, I agree with you - but  in terms of  what you
>>>>>>  *mean* by
>>>>>> what you say, I take a different  view.  If  Ontology is "A  science or
>>>>>> study
>>>>>> of being: specifically,  a branch of  metaphysics relating to the
>>>>>>  nature and
>>>>>> relations of  being; a  particular system according to which  problems
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>  nature of being  are investigated; first philosophy", then,  ontology
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> absolutely  expressed in words. In fact, there is no  such thing  as
>>>>>> inquiry
>>>>>>  *without* language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If, however, we are appropriating the word ontology to mean, not  the
>>>>>>  inquiry into 'being-ness' but being-ness itself, then the case  is
>>>>>>  somewhat different. (You notice that I do not use the word
>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>> This is because 'existence' does not convey the  qualities  of
>>>>>>  presence and
>>>>>> awareness, for example, that we assign  to  ontological inquiry. Which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> why, of course, ontology is so  often  'reassigned' to describe
>>>>>>  being-ness.)
>>>>>> Being-ness is a  clumsy,  cobbled together word, and quite ugly; but
>>>>>> substituting  the word  'ontology' is a misappropriation of existing
>>>>>> language to  meet a new  purpose, something that makes the process of
>>>>>>  distinction,  articulation and reflection extremely difficult.  We  do
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> a new  word but until we have one, I shall use being-ness.   As we
>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>  words describe experience and assign meaning to that  experience;
>>>>>>  i.e.
>>>>>> they are descriptive and interpretive. Words  'name' and thereby
>>>>>>  describe
>>>>>> experience, (never entirely  adequately), but they cannot  *be* the
>>>>>> experience. Being, just like  sunshine, roses or starlight  has no
>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>> that we do not assign  through language; (we see, we  feel, we name and
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> interpret).  Being and naming are two different  things. We do these
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> things,  describe experience and assign  meaning, congruently,
>>>>>>  fluently and
>>>>>>  seamlessly, which is why we  confuse the two more often than  not;
>>>>>>  that is,
>>>>>> we mistake assigned  meaning, or interpretation, for  experience to
>>>>>> such a
>>>>>> degree that it  is almost part of the human  condition. Here's an
>>>>>> illustration:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suppose you are stopped in traffic when look to your right and see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> driver of the car next to you - staring at you with a look of
>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>> venom. You say to your friend who is driving, 'That man in   the  car
>>>>>> beside
>>>>>> us looked at me with pure hatred'. What happened,   though you  did not
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> it, was that you looked at a man in the car   beside you at the  same
>>>>>> moment
>>>>>> when he turned his head toward you.  He  seemed to be staring - but he
>>>>>> did
>>>>>> not really see you at all  because  he was thinking about how to tell
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> wife that he had  just been  fired. You *could* have described the
>>>>>> experience by  saying, 'That  man just looked in my direction with a
>>>>>> terrible  expression on his  face.' But you instantly, and
>>>>>> unconsciously,
>>>>>>  'named' and assigned a  meaning to his expression, one that was
>>>>>>  personal
>>>>>> and hostile. It was  to that meaning that you reacted.  (Notice that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> meaning you  assign to the experience exists in  and arises only  out
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>  language you use for your  interpretation.) You did not notice  the
>>>>>>  process
>>>>>> by which you have  now come to own and internalize an  experience of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> stared at  with hatred by a frightening stranger.  Your brain  will
>>>>>> react to
>>>>>>  the meaning as to an actual experience and  will produce the
>>>>>>  appropriate
>>>>>> chemicals, so that you will feel shaken  and perhaps  upset for some
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> afterwards, thus confirming a 'real'   encounter. But what  happened
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> occurred, not in experience,   but only in the naming of what you saw
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the meaning you derived   from that naming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus what happens when we (daily), mistake meaning for experience,   is
>>>>>> that our interpretations create our descriptions of the world   which,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> turn, generate new ideas which create further  description…  or  to put
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> more simply, our 'stories' become  self-referenced,  grounded in and
>>>>>> sustained by their own internal  consistency rather  than by living
>>>>>> experience. Since human beings  live in stories, this  substitution of
>>>>>> interpretation for  experience can, and sometimes  does, have deadly
>>>>>> results. Please  forgive me, I mean no disrespect  or criticism  by it,
>>>>>> if I
>>>>>> take  another example from one of your posts  where you describe the
>>>>>>  psychological anatomy of a racist. (This one  doesn't have any
>>>>>>  'deadly'
>>>>>> results but I think it shows the  possibility of a common
>>>>>>  progression.)
>>>>>> Your postulation of the racist  character is entirely  consistent  with
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> description of racism;  this in turn is  supported by a good deal of
>>>>>> evidence from other  sources. (Not all  the evidence, however, and not
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> sources.) In  other words, your  analysis is entirely  self-consistent
>>>>>> - but
>>>>>> it also  puts meaning in  place of experience and then self-references.
>>>>>> A
>>>>>>  racist is not an  idea but a person. You have described 'the racist'
>>>>>>  and
>>>>>> then  presented that story as if it were an existential reality,  i.e.
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>  place of a human being who thinks feels and acts in ways  that we
>>>>>>  would
>>>>>> interpret as racist. You have analyzed that story and  drawn  sound,
>>>>>> compelling conclusions from the evidence contained  therein.  But  as
>>>>>> this is
>>>>>> self-referenced, it's fundamentally flawed.  Here is  an amazing  thing
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> it, for me. *I* found your story both   satisfying compelling. It put
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> racist firmly in the camp of the   'other', flawed by design, less
>>>>>> healthy
>>>>>> than 'us', and definitely   less human. And I have to say that at
>>>>>> visceral
>>>>>> level I really liked   that! But then, that is precisely what  racism
>>>>>> does -
>>>>>> dehumanizes  the  'other' while vindicating 'us'. So now I can  see
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>  story  cannot be true because enjoyment of 'othering' - even those
>>>>>>  who
>>>>>>  offend my own humanity because they 'other' and then oppress  on  the
>>>>>>  basis
>>>>>> of class, race, sex, belief etc. - demonstrates that  the   operant
>>>>>> factor is
>>>>>> as present in me as it is in 'racists' and,  in  fact you and  everyone
>>>>>> else!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What has that to do with what can and cannot live in words, with AR
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Living Theory? Just this. The only way to avoid the kind of
>>>>>>  inauthenticity
>>>>>> that lives in the substitution of meaning for   experience, is to
>>>>>> understand, absolutely clearly, that words are   *not* and never  can
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>> experiences they describe; that you must   live, and live in, the
>>>>>>  experience
>>>>>> that you describe; that you must   return to the experience again  and
>>>>>> again
>>>>>> to test your own   description. Thus, my own experience of enjoying the
>>>>>> 'portrait of a   racist' and then reflecting on that enjoyment  was all
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> pulled   *me* up short; there were no flaws in the internal consistency
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> your story and analysis. This is why we have to ring-fence   unfiltered
>>>>>> experience in ways that constantly bring us back to it,   that remind
>>>>>> us
>>>>>> that description is not the 'thing-in-itself', so   that we can stop
>>>>>> describing and self referencing our own stories  and  begin to give the
>>>>>> being-ness that precedes description and  meaning  its true place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is what watching real human beings, being with one another,  (in
>>>>>>  real time or on film), does for us. We can allow ourselves to  see
>>>>>>  and
>>>>>> feel, just the way we might turn our faces up to the sun  or the
>>>>>> rain. Then
>>>>>> we can look at one another with love or wonder  and say,  'What  *was*
>>>>>> that?'
>>>>>> And begin to talk. And we will know  that the love  and wonder  that we
>>>>>> write
>>>>>> and talk about are  what-they-are, and are  beyond our words. And we
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> also know  that it is wonderful to  reflect, to talk and to write
>>>>>>  about them
>>>>>>  so that we can share and  grow from the experience. We will also
>>>>>> know that
>>>>>> the words and the  experience are not the same thing. The   being-ness
>>>>>> lives
>>>>>> in the  experience; the reflection (an image of  the real thing  only),
>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>  in the words. This is one of the  things that makes subjective, LT,
>>>>>>  and
>>>>>> our sharing of the  experience in its being-ness (on film if   that's
>>>>>> all we
>>>>>> have  available) so powerful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> love
>>>>>> Sara
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>