 |
 |
Steve, When I first started reading your posts a few years ago I figured I understood about 10% of the meaning....then gradually over the years I feel like I made it over the 50% milestone, which was rather fun.....but my powers have slipped and with this one I would flatter myself (or yourself) if I said I understood 10%.... Steve, what is 'banking education' and what is the rest in a language I can 50% understand?? Love James 11/16/01 +0200, you wrote: >Hello again Robert and all - Phew, that was a wide and warm display of >positions Robert and I do not mean this badly. But I would like to try and >take >just one of your points and relate it to the earlier point from John Quay >concerning BANKING education. > >Your point concerns the "purpose(ful)" rationality of that to which we intend >and move towards and with. > >Here is one face of a Banking system ( although a sens eof purpose is not >being >denied here) so long as it takes on mere instrumental rationality. > >There are other rationality-contexts whereby a "mix" of motivations and >word-deeds make solid sense. For example the poetic and the aesthetic and the >sensuous social body are significant here. To over-emphasise "purposeful >rationality" is surely a very big proble-story of all life and of life seen >through social science. When, for example, the rule books and the Law are >divorced ( fault-lined) from morality then this fragmentation shows itself in >the need for a new code - a code of ethics. > >I am saying here that we must take seriously the instrumental value but we >must >not seperate it from the working contects of real life as lived. Formulas and >codes need de-coding for this to happen. Programmes need de-programming >and this >is one beginning for a counter to banking education. But to do that we are >working inside a constellation where instrumental rationality ( >lonley-selections) is but one voice. We are working, in one way or >another, with >a face of the good life and well-being. So yes we do need that old guy >Aristotle >- still !!!! > >Comment : Banking education takes on the purposeful-instrumental >rationality and >by doing so acts in the name of the alienated world of fragments and risk. I >deny that kind of banking and i deny that over-emphasis upon a purposeful >rationality. > >best wishes >steve bowles > >Robert Bavis wrote: > > > Sorry I keep sending this just to one person (Steve Bowles in this case) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Bavis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:26 AM > > To: 'Steve Bowles' > > Subject: RE: process vs. outcomes - language > > > > Steve and Roger and any interested lurkers... > > > > I can't help but step in for at least a moment or two to ask: To what > > purpose - the PROCESS or the END/OUTCOME - is THIS current discussion > > heading/headed? Do you want to (merely?) reach a > > solution/resolution/agreement/disagreement or do you want this to be > > on-going discussion continue without ending. OR, do want to bake your cake > > and eat it too? In this very discussion you are questioning whether or not > > there is a rift/fault line between PROCESS and OUTCOME. > > > > Do we really want/need to go back in time to Aristotle's myriad > > reflections/discussions on the "Particulars" and "Essence" of "reality" to > > find an answer, or to walk another's journey? > > > > What do you Roger, Steve, James (et al.?) want - a mindful meandering? a > > purposeful pilgrimage? or, an aimless wandering? Hermes (i.e. > hermeneutics) > > is always at play when two or more are gathered together in discourse. Do > > we want to find agreement (an outcome) on terminology or explore the > > dynamics of the ever changing "word"? Both? Neither? > > > > Can we really (temporarily?) escape our "western" scientific "objectivity" > > so that our subjective thoughts and experience can (temporarily) take the > > forefront? Should we? How can we? > > > > Does this discussion have purpose (seeking an end goal) or does it need > > purpose? > > > > Implicit in my quasi-Socratic questioning is the quest to set > parameters (an > > ultimate goal) for the purpose of deciding how to get beyond philosophical > > reiterations (of which I am already deeply immersed:)) and onto SOMETHING > > pragmatic/practical for the so-called "lay person" (e.g. the first year > > practitioner). I hope something useful will trickle down the steps of the > > "ivory tower" of philosophical discussion but I also recognize that the > > "trickle" may have value in and of itself. > > > > I also want to avoid the ultimately non-Aristotelian (sp?) quagmire of > > "monism" (i.e. the belief that all is one). I do so because I personally > > believe to do so would put us all on the shifting sands of > subjectivism...at > > best, a most difficult ground to stand on together. > > > > My recommendation: Decide the/an ultimate purpose for continuing the > > discussion. Is it for "puffing ourselves up" or is it for some other > > reason? > > > > Maybe this current quest is foundering a bit in the fog... > > > > Robert > > A Socrates-wanna be :) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: To enable debate and discussion around research issues in outdoor and > > adventure education [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve Bowles > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:22 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: process vs. outcomes - language > > > > Yes Roger I agree - something might come from this. > > > > I also agree that we might need to keep on walking along that > > "fault-line". > > > > Language is stretched here to the limits. behavioural and positivistic > > games are one game here and hermeneutics and/or critical hermeneutics > > are another. > > > > The discussion so far has not yet asked WHO IS SPEAKING and this > > discussion so far has not yet asked about the living context ( the > > situation) of this abstracted process and abstracted outcome. > > > > Such is one face of this "fault-line" just as the > > epistemological-ontological faces will inevitably smile as we move along > > and make the pathway. > > > > But we must get real here. > > > > I tried to bring up before the Dewey links with pragmaticism and in this > > i was ready to find replies from Richard Rorty as would be a sensible > > hope. But we must get real. Few, if any, adventure programming texts > > have even begun to consider such texts and we must seek out educational, > > philosophical, experiential, pedagogic and similar texts and discussions > > for help and communication so long as adventure programming texts are > > the easy to follow and shallow to wade rivers of discontent. > > > > Am I dropping "names"? I do not think so. > > I am however dropping any expectations knowing what I know about > > mainstream literature concerning adventure programming. > > > > It might be that we need to invite more "outsiders" to join the > > conversation. > > At least then the wider community of research would see that we are > > willing to try. > > > > But maybe a book or text might be discussed to help us walk our pathway. > > > > That way we might all learn a thing or two together - other discussion > > lists do this. > > > > But maybe we simply need to begin with the big stories like positivistic > > behaviour schemes and the many alternatives to any mirror of > > nature/representational stuff. > > > > Who speaks and with what ? > > > > best wishes > > steve b > > > > Roger Greenaway wrote: > > > > > As Steve has picked up this thread again, I wonder if others will > > > too? > > > > > > There is the possibility of quite a creative outcome to this > > > thread whether it's a clarification of terms or the > > > discovery/creation of an area of research where it is useful to > > > think of ''process'n'outcome'' as bound together and inseparable. > > > > > > My last comment in this thread was that I felt 100% confused > > > following James's comment about his willingness to plug students > > > into the wall if it worked, but not wanting to be characterised > > > as an outcomes person (since followed by announcing on this list > > > the award of 'Research Site of the Month' for an outcomes study) > > > > > > To put this kind of argument to the test I have painted myself > > > green and I plead with everyone I meet not to call me a > > > green-painted person. > > > > > > OK - I am forcing the issue. But is this not how (academic) > > > dialogue proceeds? It is because I am confused that I am seeking > > > enlightenment. Maybe someone can help James explain his point or > > > help me understand it? > > > > > > The process/outcome issue is far from being a trivial one. It is > > > a major fault line running through the history of research in our > > > field. Here is an opportunity for us to do something about it. > > > > > > Roger Greenaway > > > Reviewing Skills Training > > > [log in to unmask] > > > http://reviewing.co.uk "Humour is by far the most significant activity of the human brain." - Edward De Bono, Daily Mail, 29 January, 1990 -------------------------------------------- James T. Neill Department of Kinesiology University of New Hampshire New Hampshire Hall 124 Main Street Durham, NH 03824 USA voice: 603 862 3047 fax: 603 862 0154 email: [log in to unmask] Professional Home Page: http://www.unh.edu/outdoor-education/JamesNeill.htm UNH Outdoor Education Program: http://www.unh.edu/outdoor-education/index.html UNH Outdoor Education Research & Evaluation Center: http://www.unh.edu/outdoor-education/research.html