Hello Joe , in this wonderful flurry of communications - thanks.
Again if i may try and keep a red-line thread. I try and speak here with Robert
and John as best I can - I try and be a postman delivering a red-line.
Here we have examples of this "mix". A mix of rationalities that do indeed play
games with particular moments and generalised concepts ( " Doing-Reviewing"?)
and I fel warm at this experiential condition that now emerges through our
adventurous dialogues. Your own thread is no mere instrumental rationality and
if we follow your line we cannot find easily a banking education either. We are
open(ed).
I agree with you about the problems of over-emphasising difference and
fault-lines but if a de-constructive position is enter(ed) then no destructive
scene emerges because one or another sense of freedom and creativity emerges
thus. I suppose it is all a bit like the flames and the embers of a campfire.
WE need sometimes to "name the world" ( Freire) but we do not need to sentence
the folk.
best wishes from
the "Diff-Errant" steve bowles
jo straker wrote:
> Hi
> I’d like to thank everyone who puts their ideas, thoughts and opinions on
> line….I’m constantly amazed at the depth and breadth of your dialogue. I’m
> sure there are many other silent readers who really appreciate your efforts.
>
> I’ve been reading a book called visualisations; the nature book of Art and
> Science by Martin Kemp. It is a wonderful book about the interactions of
> visual art and science. He talks about the benefits of bringing diverse
> ideas together and the limitations of our usual responses which are to
> search for differences.
>
> I think the metaphor of the fault-line is particularly inappropriate for
> this talk of ‘process’n’outcomes’. By talking about a divide we create an
> even bigger one. I’m sure someone with an outcomes focus also integrates
> ongoing outcomes, the development of outcomes and why we perceive some
> outcomes as being ‘better’ than others into their work. While others who
> supposedly come from a more process base, are also interested in searching
> for information about how the process is proceeding and whether it is going
> in any direction by determining benchmarks, or as Henri Bergman said
> "instantaneous lightning flashes on a storm-scene in the darkness." ("Matter
> and Memory", page 209.)
>
> The two are intimately intertwined as of course content and context are. If
> other words express our thoughts more clearly lets use them… it’s not as if
> the outdoor community has been entrenched in process/outcome language for
> decades, it was convenient, now we see the limitations, so lets move on.
>
> Earlier in the debate Steve talks about emerging knowledge, a knowledge
> which is growing and developing. Bergson, a French philosopher who looked
> at the process view of reality talked about the problem with analysis is
> that we often choose to analyse the fixed point or a single concept and in
> return get only one view, there are infinite angles and endless moments. The
> stuff of life itself is change.
>
> I suppose its not good netiquette to reply to two streams in one email but
> they do intertwine. In response to Roger’s stance on challenging each others
> ideas, Bergson, believed knowledge …."can only be constructed by the
> collective and progressive effort of many thinkers, and of many observers,
> completing, correcting, and righting one another." (Preface to "Creative
> Evolution".)
>
> Cheers
> Jo
>
> Jo Straker
> CPIT
> Christchurch
> NZ
>
> At 06:22 PM 11/14/01 +0200, you wrote:
> >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
> >
