 |
 |
--On 03 April 2008 16:17 +0100 Jack Whitehead <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > When Pete made the following posting of the 14th March 2008 [<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0803&L=bera-practitioner -researcher&T=0&O=A&X=55577C08EA9842E192&Y=esspem%40bath.ac.uk&P=9573>] I said that > it would take me several weeks to respond. The response, following > Pete's posting below, includes a keynote address from last Friday at the > International Conference of Teacher Research (ICTR 2008) in New York and > a video of the keynote made available today from the University of > Bath's streaming server. > mms://wms.bath.ac.uk/live/education/JackWhitehead_030408/jackkeynoteictr2 > 80308large.wmv Jack - Re: my Roderick - Horkheimer/Adorno quote "... Western reason as a destructive force... the identity logic which is the fundamental structure of Western reason. Human liberation could be conceived, if at all, only as a complete break with mere formal rationality and instrumental reason ...." I've just watched your address at mms://wms.bath.ac.uk/live/education/JackWhitehead_030408/jackkeynoteictr280 308large.wmv I saw it as a tour de force that, for me, communicates all that you said you hoped to communicate. For me, the crux of the argument came just before 54 mins when you said: "... when I look at those statements made about me and then you look here [clips of the 6-year-old action researchers] at what really matters ..." At that point, I was able to hold at the same time a sense of the qualities of the entirely separate (and disparate) worlds from which the statements and the clips had come; at that point you showed me an example of movement towards "...a complete break with mere formal rationality and instrumental reason" and the form of a world to which such a break might lead. Thank you! - Pete PS. You also ask: > What I'd really appreciate are your responses to this latest account from > my research programme into the nature of educational theory. I'm > thinking of responses that relate to my belief that I've not only > accepted the points in your posting of the 14th March. Have I also shown > that I am accounting for/explaining my educational influences in > relation to flows of life-affirming energy, a relationally dynamic > awareness and gazes of recognition of the being of the other? I'm > wondering about the validity of my claim that, like Eleanor in her > Ph.D., the presentation, paper and video, constitute evidence of my love > at work in education in an explanation of my educational influence? Having just emerged from the diverting delights of a colonoscopy at the RUH whose results are thankfully life-affirming in terms of my continuing comfort and presence on this planet, I shall reuse your words and plead that it will "take me several weeks to respond" - or, as someone else once famously said - "I'll have to think about it" (source please Moira).