Dear Sara,

 

I have been very impressed by your hermeneutical reading! I also thank you for your benevolence in speaking so generously and graciously. Your tone is inspiring!

I would like to respond to the questions that you have asked in the following order. (I am not bringing the initial quote as you have mentioned).

 

We need to make a distinction here: locutionary is what we say. Illocutionary is what we mean by what we say: if it is an order, if it is an imperative mood, if it is a request, or a promise. We also have the third factor: perlocutionary which is the impact of what is said on the audience. The audience, would probably process the information through both the rational mind and the experiential mind. The rational mind can have a focus on the cognition where as the experiential mind would concentrate on emotions. The marginal meanings, the associative and the affective meanings unfold themselves here. Also, culture appears as an unconscious factor that can filter the perlocutionary element.

 

I have only tried to present the position by the German Expressivism. However, I fully comply with you that there are some inherently universal sense of justice, freedom, aesthetics, etc. You have referred to the kids who have a natural sense of justice without borrowing it from their parents. I guess you are referring to the values common to human beings. What would happen if we take off the words such as “heart” from the literary works all around the world? What makes us cry together is indicative of values that constitute humanity as a whole. I will talk about this more elaborately in my future postings.

Yes, Johari window and its four components would be of great avail here.

 

I was referring to some perspectives on the distinction here in that if we are going to limit ourselves to the distinction between the potential and the competence, that does not really lead us any where since access to the potential is inextricably tied to access to the performance. 

You are right on your examples and arguments since some people think in terms of words (verbal style of thinking) whereas others think in terms of images (visual styles of thinking).

 I fully agree with you that one's potential can be different from what he/she shows.

In regards to teaching creatively, we first need to develop awareness on what creativity is: to look for the unfamiliar in the midst of familiar. We need to constantly remind learners to revisit the mindsets so they do not only focus on what actually is but what potentially can be. If I show my students a can of coke and ask them what it is. They may come up with “this is a coke”. Where as if they come up with “this can be coke”, they can think of what this can be otherwise. This can be of great changes in terms of lexicon. I have done workshops for educators in this regard and at the end of the day, we have seen big changes in modes of expressiveness and modes of 
reflexivity. I can share the details later if you like.

As I have mentioned, I am not using mindlessness and mindfulness in the form of a binary and I am not suggesting that mindfulness is the only key to creativity. Creativity can not be prescribed in one definitive way. Creativity does not recognize any borders, frontiers or language.

 

I thank you again and I wish you celebrating the consummation of nocturnal insights and contemplation away from the hue and cries of deviation standards,

 

Mohsen

---

From: Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: BERA Practitioner-Researcher <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What are living standards of judgement?
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:37:41 +0000
>Dear Mohsen (and Everyone)
>
>I have read your paper Fighting for Otherwise with enormous enjoyment and a spirit of conviction
>that you are offering me much to learn. It's been a quite a long while before the cherry has ripened
>sufficiently on the bough for me to form a response to your work. I offer it to you in deep respect.
>
>In forming a response I have been trying to create something that will I hope assist you and others
>in sharing insights into my standards of judgement. I read your paper three times - this is how I
>always approach a review. On a first reading I get a gut reaction, on a second a detailed analysis
>and on the third I review my initial reaction and my detailed analysis: have I missed anything here?
>In so doing I believe I bring together qualitative i.e. 'affective' standards of judgement as well as
>quantitative ones e.g what proportion of this paper adds knowledge to that which already exists?
>
>My starting point in reviewing your paper after three readings was this:
>
>What have I learnt that can enable me to
>
>* deepen my understandings and knowledge
>* enhance how I live my values in my personal and professional life?
>* enable me to develop my aptitudes and extend my skills?
>
>Those of us who are familar with the Scottish Standard for Chartered Teachers will see where I am
>coming from! The Standard using a tri-dialogic dynamic interaction amnog these perspectives as a
>basis for improving practice, using action research as a form of on-going and systematic enquiry.
>
>I then moved on to Standards that I share with others but since I am focusing on Can this scholarly
>work bring about Good? and the notion of Good inevitably differs from person to person then the
>standards of judgement I use are essentially my own here. I bring my own 'filter of Being' to them.
>
>* Is this paper written in a way that enables me to understand what the author is trying to say?
>* Is the research appplicable in the socio-economic and cultural climate in which I live and work?
>* What changes if any might need to made for the process and/or outcomes of this scholarly work
>to be enacted for 'Good'?
>* What is the quality of this research? is it rigorous? Has it been validated? Can it be validated?
>How has data been synthesised to create evidence that backs up claims to know? (Jack you have
>trained me well!!! Our ten years' work in adjacent offices at the University of Bath weren't wasted!)
>* How do I feel about this work? Might it earn a place in my forming a positive and possible self?
>* How can I use what I read to assist me to nurture my own and others' internectivity for Good?
>
>My review (apologies for a very lengthy email - please don't click 'Quote Original' if you reply to it!)
>
>'language users may sometimes .... what they want to say (page 1)
>I take this to mean something akin to Schon's notion of reflection-in-action - here 'speech action'
>
>'It may be proper to mention ....mode of being' (page 1)
>This is very interesting and 'new' knowledge! You entice e to learn more about 'understanding'.
>
>According to Usher .... opulently rich in vew of content' (page 1)
>I think this applies especially in relation to using email - and resonates with my experience of
>'getting it wrong' ....
>
>'The same mindfulness ... content and substance' (page 2)
>This brings home to me inadequacies of text alone to communicate the finesse of meaningful acts
>
>'This consciousness .... in the early stages of learning'. (page 2)
>This resonates with my own experience where I realised that I was at near native fluency in French
>as a second language but struggled (and has a different personain my third language, Spanish.
>
>The very coscniousness ... conscioulsness and expression' (page 2)
>I have a third point 'What impact might my words have on others especially if I struggle to express
>myself in a language I am not altogether fluent in?'
>
>'According to German Expressivism ..' (page 2)
>New knowledge for me -could be useful and I'll find out more ...
>
>'every human being is unrepeatable'
>True, I think yet there are sufficient replications in our make-up that we can act empatheticaly and
>inclusively while embracing our diversity.
>
>'each person develops and unfolds according to his/her own code' (page 3)
>I have problems with this .. what about the notion of free choice? Also - kids I have taught seemed
>to have a natural sense of justice. Where di it come from (not always from their parents I felt sure!)
>
>' ...Islamic philosophers .. ' (page 3
>This is new and exciting ground for me!
>
>'the exclusion of philosophical thought does not, iso facto, prove the falsehood of these types of
>knowledge' (page 3) I agree wholeheartedly! It puts me in mind of Galileo's insights and the quote
>(must look it up - I found it for a paper I drafted with je Kan - "I am a stranger in my own land").
>
>Last paragraph numbered page 3099 - puts me in mind of the Johari window - wouldn't this be a
>useful reference for Mohsen to relate to perhaps?
>
>'We need to look again at the distinctions ...' (page 3100)
>Why? I need you to explain this to me, Mohsen, please.
>
>'As long as someone has not talked or written anything ...' (page 3100)
>I think in images - why limit to spoken or written communication? What about deaf:blind and
>deaf:mutes - is their knowledge only what has been transmitted to them through words? No ...
>
>'conditions under which children gain consciousness' (page 3100)
>This kind of creative 'priming' can be assisted by visualisation of positve and possible selves.
>
>'mindless' top line and the remainder of the page(page 3101)
>This definition is not to be confused with couldn't care less - type mindlessness but seems more
>akin to the state of action and spech that assumes a kind of autonomy or it would clog our
>thoughts and potential to communicate. This puts me in mind of talking to Moira when she was
>teaching in Bath - she interacted SO creatively with the National Curriuclum. The same legislation
>has made other teachers automatons who need to be stimulated to realise their creative potential
>- how can I use what Mohsen is teaching me to assist teacher and students to interact creatively?
>
>'mindfulness liberates us from our limitations' .... (page 3101)
>'mindlessness .. an impediment for novel ideas'
>Not sure about this - sometimes when my mind is idling it's when my creativity bubbles through.
>This page reminds me of a fascinating presentation at the recent IATEFL conference I attended in
>Croatia - I must remember to send Mohsen the link. The girl presenting proposed teaching auto-
>running EFL phrases so students get a feel for the language - she was shot down by a ourist who
>insisted on teaching only words that could be employed mindfully - I think you need both kinds!
>I think you need to model how to challenge mindless expressions so they are revitalised and
>reinvented - as language develops organically. On the other hand you need enough set phrases
>to oil the wheels - to get you going when you interact in a languae that is not your mother tongue.
>
>Page 3104 'To put it another way'
>I agree entirely Mohsen! We need speech compenets to be learnt but we aos need to model that
>these can be combined in an infinite and unbounded combination that enables us to express our
>uniqueness as well as our connectedness to others, tat will enable us to learn inside out and
>outside in and communicate that process to others - with pedagogical and androgical intent.
>
>Page 3105 'a new discourse may promise the opening of a new way of thinking' (premise?)
>Your blessings do that Mohsen - my office is filled with lilacs and I am enjoying their perfume!
>
>For me the jewel in yourpaper is offered in the final paragraphs - 'The essence of creativity ...
>This is fabulously inspiring to my mind and elucidates how inadequate the RAE categories would
>be as a stand alone standard of judgement - they do nothing to communicate the power and
>exquisite beauty of your language and your persuasive and masterful conclusion to your paper!
>
>Thank you, thank you, Mohsen for offering me so many riches to savour (and learn from) in your
>writing.
>
>Pete - I see you asked for interaction as a basis for understanding standards of judgement in play
>- at the risk of having exasperated everyone by such a long email I hope I have offered insights
>into the standards of judgement I use. Some have been drilled into me by constant use - as an
>MA tutor I look for critical engagement with appropriate literature and evidence that the writer has
>refleted on their own practice through on-going and systematic enquiry. Mohsen has - superbly! I
>look for originality of mind and critical judgemet (standards that I was subject to as a PhD student)
>Ample evidence in Mohsen's writing. Most of all I search in my heart as I read. Am I 'moved'? YES!
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Sarah
>
>