Print

---

I've just enjoyed reading Pete's latest contribution.  I liked the  
clarity of the communication in working towards the elucidation of  
the form of living standards of judgment. I felt myself focusing on  
'It is possible to describe/depict/represent those attributes and  
modes of enquiry that encourage the co-generation of standards of  
judgment'.  I'd like to understand more about the co-generation of  
standards in practitioner-research. For example, I know that Eden  
expressed his originality of mind in generating the standards of  
judgment of Ubuntu, guiltless recognition and societal  
reidentification. I think I know what Pete means by co-generation in  
the sense that in comprehending Eden, readers must generate their  
understandings of Eden's meanings. In legitimating Eden's thesis in  
the Academy, with his original standards of judgment I can see that  
the standards have been co-generated in the sense that they are only  
flowing through web-space in a doctoral thesis because the standards  
have been understood by both Eden and the examiners.

As I use the standards created by Eden and seek to extend their  
influence I can see that we are co-generating the standards that can  
be used by others and can contribute to the education of social  
formations. I believe Pete's insight that we cannot say what such  
standards of judgment are, but that we can show each other the  
meanings of our standards, is profoundly significant for practitioner- 
researchers who are producing explanations for their educational  
influences in learning.  I'm thinking here of the significance of  
practitioner-researchers showing their embodied meanings of the  
expression of social justice, integrity, care, compassion, love,  
freedom, respect, ubuntu, gift creation, societal reidentification  
and guiltless recognition (as well as the expression of other values  
together with the procedural principles of democracy).  I know how  
easy it is for points to be missed in each others' postings and I do  
hope that the claims I made in yesterday's posting stimulate your  
interest in responding:

"1)	Living standards of judgment have been generated by practitioner- 
researchers in the theses
below that have established a new epistemology for educational  
knowledge. The standards are
consistent with Schon’s call for a new epistemology for the new  
scholarship from action research.
2)	These living standards of judgment have been generated in 5  
doctoral theses below with
graduations between September 2006 and July 2007, during the course  
of this year’s e-seminar."

I thought you would enjoy Eden's Section 3 on Ubuntu, Barbara, I  
found Eden's artistry in his drawings particularly inspiring. Also  
just to say how much I agree with postings that point to the  
importance of avoiding indoctrination and imposition. One of the  
reasons I like the idea of individuals generating their own  
explanations of their educational influences in learning, is that  
these rest on the creativity of each individual and are resistant to  
the imposition of anyone elses' theoretical framework, while freely  
drawing insights from such frameworks in the creation of their own  
personal theories. And now to celebrate Eden's graduation today in Bath!

Love Jack.


On 27 Jun 2007, at 10:47, Peter Mellett wrote:

> Jack -
>
> Our last conversation helped me to add the next step to my attempt to
> elucidate the form of living standards of judgment.  . . . The  
> progression
> currently runs as follows (using my best Tractatus-esque mode of  
> linear
> reasoning):
>
> * We cannot say what a standard of judgment is.
>
> * We cannot describe standards of judgment using propositional  
> forms of
> language and logic.
>
> * Within a dialogical and inclusional conversation with another, we  
> know
> when we have agreed a standard of judgment and applied it to the  
> matter on
> hand: it enables each of us to say "I now know that you understand  
> what I
> mean".
>
> * We co-generate living standards of judgment as we enquire into  
> our forms
> of life and share them within educational action enquiries.
>
> * Collaborators within an action enquiry agree standards of  
> judgment in
> order to progrees their enquiry.
>
> * There are certain positive personal attributes and certain  
> appropriate
> modes of enquiry that dispose people to being able to collaborate  
> within an
> action enquiry and to co-generate the standards of judgment  
> required to
> confirm that current aspect of the enquiry as being educational.
>
> * It is possible to describe/depict/represent those attributes and  
> modes of
> enquiry that encourage the co-generation of standards of judgment.
>
> * What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence (but  
> that, dear
> Ludwig, does not mean we can't try to SHOW each other what we mean  
> by using
> webcams, Facebook and other such e-delights not available to you in  
> 1917).
>
>
> - Pete