Heather,
My last comment was not intended to you but a response to yesterday's
question.
It may well be that my strong personal feelings against the
inclusionality people (clique) who claim to be inclusional and then
move to personal insults when criticised or critiqued does make me
"defensive, angry and arrogant" and not relating in a constructive
manner. Which makes it a waste of time and counterproductive for
readers and writer. But feelings are feelings and experiences are
experiences. And closure and moving on is the answer. A
communication that does not transform is not a dialogue and is
counterproductive.
Jack's decision to keep his association with the inclusionality clique
is his choice that I of course fully respect but disagree with.
I regret very much making my response to the amendment of the section
on the sources for PhD candidates. I honestly thought that my
contribution as a former PhD candidate who used these resources could
be of value. But of course no EQ joins the other charming responses I
received from the clique. It joins hedgehog, cretin, vampire, liar, a
traditional psychologist, a positivist and other pearls I forgot. This
is the behaviour of a clique not academics.
Quoting Heather Goode <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Alon
>
> I think you have misinterpreted my previous posting, this was an
> invitation share to build a shared understanding.
> I think there are valuable elements to your contributions, but often
> the way you share these lead to what I experience as a possible
> contradictions between your intention and it's impact.
>
> As I come from different discipline and cultural backgrounds, I
> thought was worth exploring. My intention is not to build like
> mindedness, but understanding, and explore ways of giving critique
> that is received in ways that build constructive change - my
> personal development challenge includes the mentoring of academic
> staff.
>
> Best wishes
> Heather
>
> Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: Practitioner-Researcher
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:54:51
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Practitioner-Researcher
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Loving Wisdom in Explanations of Educational Influence
> - developing a cooperative enquiry?
>
> Heather,
>
> The webdesigner is completing the last changes of my applied
> dialectical platform for my new applied dialectical therapeutic,
> educational and ontological method
>
> The platform is a virtual community of a clinical, educational and
> ontological support group for both individuals in need and
> professional practitioners. It is a protective space for social
> interaction, reflection, dialogue and learning new insights and
> skills. It is a safe space for individuals? to discuss, share, log,
> blog and dialogue their lives with trusted friends and interact with
> other people in a safe and caring environment that is monitored by
> clinicians. They get a listening ear, true care, social interaction,
> therapeutic support and constructive feedbacks on things that happen
> to them in their on-going lives, the way they lead their lives and
> their relationships, feelings, experiences and emotions. They are to
> feel less lonely, alienated and isolated. The feedbacks are provided
> in order for the members to feel better when in a down point of their
> lives, improve their feelings, relationships and quality of life and
> empower. There is also a space for lectures, conferences, one-on-one
> tutorials and dialogue about practice and how to improve it.
> Individuals are given their own space (room) with an access code that
> they can give to members of their choice. They are given instructions
> manuals which emphasise their being an integrated part of the platform
> and what makes it work successfully. They pay rent for the room. They
> can change the code whenever they want. All their personal information
> is protected in this room. They are given on-going advice about using
> the access code, who to give it to and when to change the code. They
> also have a key (access code) for a communal space that is shared by
> the community. There is also space for lectures, conferences,
> one-on-one tutorial and courses that members pay rent for or an entry
> fee for events like lectures, conferences, courses and tutorials. The
> rooms are equipped with Webspaces, blogging spaces, instruction
> manuals, and Chat software (e.g., SKYPE). The platform owner
> guarantees good conduct, safety, discretion, respect and protection of
> members as they expose and share themselves and convey intimate
> reflections and analysis of their lives, vulnerabilities, insecurities
> and experiences of pain, angst, frustration, anger, lack of fulfilment
> and emptiness and their plans to work out a more meaningful, secure
> and fulfilling life for themselves. All rooms are equipped with an SOS
> facility and an emergency push button which alerts the platform owner
> and if needed an emergency mental health organisation in the like of
> the Samaritans or the local emergency care. He/She is encouraged to
> use this button when feeling abused."
>
> Now, in accordance with the platform rules, as soon as a participant
> experiences the other party as disengaging, rude, not safe to be with,
> defensive or arrogant, the dialogue and relationship stops. I give a
> refund and we part company.
>
> You just used the SOS and I am very happy to follow my own rules.
>
> I wish the inclusionality clique happiness in your own clique. I
> prefer a distinction between cliques and academics. Unlike, the
> belief of this small clique, boundaries are hard and rigid and there
> is an excluded middle. Either a small clique or serious academics.
>
> Quoting Heather Goode <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As a relative newby, I have been following conversations more than
>> contributing.
>> But I would like to thank Andrew, Brian and Jack for their comments
>> on this conversation in how they have responded to Alon.
>>
>> For me I have been drawn to AR and LET because of the emphasis on
>> professional development while remaining people sensitive/friendly
>> and the commitment to values such as wisdom, love, empowerment and
>> enabling development. As this is a largely collaborative approach to
>> building knowledge and professional development, I have been
>> troubled by Alon's approach to this group. In addition since many of
>> us are making a challenging journey in evaluating our professional
>> practice, we come to this group to meet within a "safe place" and
>> share resources, ideas and provoke deeper reflection. Or have I
>> misinterpreted the purposes of this group?
>>
>> My experience of your contributions Alon, is that while you have
>> some very interesting ideas and call us to critical review, the way
>> you do this dis-engages me and I often experience you as defensive
>> or arrogant.
>>
>> From various discussions, I may not be the only one and I realise
>> that this may not be your intention at all. As part of the LET
>> approach is "accounting for practice" (to borrow Jean McNiff's
>> phrase), please can you account for your influence. I suspect there
>> is a diversion between what you are trying to do and how those you
>> are influencing others (such as this group) and how others are
>> experiencing your influence.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Heather
>>
>>
>> Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Henon <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sender: Practitioner-Researcher
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:44:49
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Practitioner-Researcher
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Loving Wisdom in Explanations of Educational Influence
>> - developing a cooperative enquiry?
>>
>> Alon
>>
>> Please qualify and clarify your statement
>>
>> "My critical review and engagement is what makes and keeps LET an
>> academic approach and permits Jack to stay, if he wishes, within the
>> academy"
>>
>> I do not see how this can be true I think Jack would defend his
>> academic freedoms beyond what ever you may or may not have
>> contributed. I see Jack as the generous one in the relationship here.
>>
>> And I interpret 'Man Know thy self' as common sense beyond any
>> spiritual needs. The fact that the text has been preserved through
>> ages by a religious means merely shows that there are some values
>> and wisdoms to be considered in ancient writings.
>>
>> I realised that you would not agree with my perceptions and insights
>> into love it is clear from your writings and clinical, medical
>> model approach of 'doing to others' and positions and asumptions
>> that you asume in your work.
>>
>> I do not seek your aproval Alon I do not need it
>>
>> Andrew Henon
>>
>
|