Andrew,
I think I have been extremely generous towards Jack and Alan Rayner
and I have never attacked Jack.
I provided a very thorough and generous critical evaluation of Jack's
work. Jack received from me something that very few
academics/theorists receive: A very thorough critical, academic and
scholarly, evaluation of everything he has writen, from his MA
dissertation to his latest writings. I suggested a way that I believe
and convince could immensely improve his ideas and work and my input
and expertise in ontology, continental philosophy, psychology and the
philosophy and history of science.
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.
My PhD is available and I gave Jack to display in his resources. I
think I was very generous.
I disagree with your input on love and wish to keep my own views. And
I do not have any spiritual side. Maybe, I shall therefore be
resurrected into a spiritual being.
Alon
Quoting Andrew Henon <[log in to unmask]>:
> Alon
>
> I have been reading, active listening and whenever possible and
> appropriate, making contributions to the discussions on this forum
> for some time now.
>
> When you say
>
> “Any love that is not critical, conditional, realistic, tough and
> dialectical, leading to a qualitative transformation, reflection,
> critical dialogue, learning and wellbeing, is not worth it and does
> not deserve the label 'love'. Same goes for wisdom, life and
> everything else”
>
> I am moved to respond because for me love is predominantly
> unconditional if it is conditional it is not love. How can love be
> conditional?
>
> Further more any thing that is critical alone is not love and love
> is qualitatively constructive critique or constructive criticism
> delivered with sensitivity. Being critical is easy taking someone
> down and picking an academic fight is simple and an illness in the
> objectified, adversarial system we perpetuate. It is this system
> that has brought us to the brink of destruction as the human race
> struggles with the systems and a world they have created in such a
> way. One can base ones thesis on bringing down someone else’s ideas
> or one can focus on developing ones own ideas and unique place and
> contributions in the world.
>
> Since when was love realistic love is part of dreaming, thinking of
> a better world and how from visualization one creates realities, it
> is the very essence of imagination made real. How many times have
> you heard stories that describe how love defies realism? It is a
> passion and love of what we do that sustains. If you do not dream,
> visualize and bring ideas into being you will never change anything.
>
> Is love ‘tough’? love can be strong and does if applied
> appropriately reinforce strong boundaries. The expression ‘Tough
> Love’ comes from a Victorian model an age that talked of ‘Spoiling’
> the child, how ridiculous one can not spoil a child a child is a
> child. Tough love is language of the poor house and Victorian abuse
> and brutalization of other.
>
> Loving behavior does not hurt and I think your words are at times
> extremely hurtful and designed and meant to be so. Love is
> acceptance, open and compassionate I sense none of this in your
> words which at times show no sign of emotional intelligence. In love
> I ask you to reflect on the words above the temple door at Delphi
> ‘Man know thy self’ I find at times a poverty of love in your words.
>
> I am so sad that you think it necessary to attack Jack and Alan
> Rayner both of whom have made the world an infinitely better place
> by the work they have done and the work they are trying to
> articulate and develop. Living educational theory is applied by
> individuals on a case by case basis so there is no single definitive
> LET theory to deconstruct. Inclusionality is based on ideas that do
> not conform to the objectified, empiricist view of the world
> therefore unless you understand that it is evolving and a developing
> theory with its own glossary of terms, praxis and language one can
> not begin to question it with traditional methodologies. As we begin
> to understand more about how the universe ‘is’ rather than how it
> is measured and defined and apply the ideas that inclusionality may
> offer we can then decide what is of value and what not, until then
> I suggest you approach these ideas with a more open mind. We will
> not solve the problems of today with the methods of yesterday,
> Einstein et al.
>
> I have been very interested to read the new contributions as they
> are being offered to this list and very much appreciate the open way
> that work is being shared and the growing canon of work being
> developed.
>
> Andrew Henon
>
>
|