 |
 |
Pip, Alan and others, Thank you both for your rapid and useful replies. Pip - with reference to your comment on my proposition that “we communicate the methods we use and what we learn in a way that can be evaluated and tested out by others” – the operative word here is ‘can’; and I might have added ‘if others choose to’. My own enquiry was based on a journaling and meditative practice which I describe in some depth; and my findings (that I experience spiritual resilience gained through a sense of a loving dynamic energy with limitless creative potential), emerged out of that practice, supported by other people’s theories and experience. I would suggest that it is not reasonable for others to ‘rubbish’ my findings unless they are willing and prepared to engage with the experience (which I need to give sufficient information about to make that possible); if they are not willing or able to do this, then they should at least remain open to the possibility that what I have concluded has validity. If, of course, someone does engage in such practices, which has different outcomes, then that provides relevant material for us to dialogue about why those outcomes are different. And so the process continues... The reason why I feel so strongly about this is because individuals such as Richard Dawkins would ‘rubbish’ my findings on the basis that all of my experience (he would contend) is rooted in nothing more than the neurons firing in my brain; and he would (probably) maintain that any ‘rational’ person would think the same. Whereas I would ask that he either enters with commitment into a meditative and journaling process so that he can share his experience with me, and discuss our mutual experiences in a constructive way; or alternatively be prepared to stay open about whether there is anything of relevance or value in my research, which he cannot validly comment on as he has not engaged in that particular experiment. Which brings me, Pip, to your second point. I completely support the point you are making. I have no problem with people being inspired by and connecting with any particular belief system, including any religion or indeed atheism. My problem is with those who (unlike you) think their way is the only or even the best way; and are not prepared to reflect on and seek to find connections between their way of understanding the world with that of others. Perhaps I was too harsh in my phrase “suspend all limiting conditions and belief systems” (I accept your critique of that); but I think it is more than just declaring your biases although that is important. Perhaps I would replace it with something like “hold lightly my beliefs and perceptions, and be prepared to modify how I express these in light of my further experiences and my dialogues with others, as I am motivated to find ways of developing a shared understanding of what it means to be human, and learning how to live creatively and harmoniously together on this planet ”. Alan – yes, indeed your response to what I wrote did not surprise me – thank you for the attached documents which I will be pleased to read. With regard to your comment on inclusionality and living theory – I would not dispute the relationship between the two. However, what I like about the term ‘living theory’ especially when seeking to communicate with people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, is that the very expression suggests the integration between theory and experience, where the two mutually and dynamically inform each other on a moment by moment basis. Thanks again for your responses – Joan ----- Original Message ---- From: Pip/Bruce Ferguson <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, 27 October, 2008 8:35:39 PM Subject: Re: Rationale for Living Theory Dear Joan and others What a fascinating and so accessible paper, Joan. Your writing is exceptionally clear and easy to follow. Congratulations – I wish I wrote as well. I cannot comment on the scientific aspects of your paper, not being trained in the so-called ‘hard sciences’. Suffice it to say that in my PhD study I came across a fascinating critique of such science by Sandra Harding, herself a scientist, who argued against the ‘objectivity’ of science in her book, “The Science Question in Feminism” (1986). It may be of use to you if you want to back up your own queries about objectivity. A couple of other reflections, given my current state of thinking. Your third proposition, Ensure that we communicate the methods we use and what we learn in a way that can be evaluated and tested out by others. while laudable as a proposition, makes me query to what extent we can ensure that our communication can be presented in ways that can be evaluated and tested out by people whose backgrounds may be quite different from ours. We can certainly do so with others whose paradigms are the same as ours (although even there, there’s obviously ground for misunderstanding and miscommunication) but communication so that evaluation and testing can be carried out by others whose paradigms may be quite different, is a far more complex task. It may not be what you intended in your proposition – perhaps clarify how widely you interpret ‘others’. The other point is, and speaking only for myself here, I find it hard to “suspend all limiting conditions and belief systems” when writing. I have used the expression before, ‘the goldfish doesn’t see the water’ and I think we are frequently quite unaware of our own limiting conditions and belief systems. Even if we are aware of them, we may not wish to suspect the belief systems. When I write, I write quite ideologically at times, fired by passion for social justice and my own Christian beliefs (though I try not to impose these on others). I’m not sure that I want to suspend these systems; I prefer, as I did in my PhD, to declare my biases so that readers can be aware of these and judge accordingly. But, and here I guess I differ from the scientists you’re describing at the start of your paper, I don’t think my way is the only way. I quite recognise that people see things differently, and I respect that. I think that is a strength of living educational theory – that people can declare and describe the ground on which they stand (turangawaewae, in Maori terms – your place of strength and belonging) and defend that ground, having made clear that it is their ground not necessarily that of others in the same culture, let alone the human race. Hope these thoughts help, Joan. I should be doing other work, but your paper was so intriguing it has prompted me to reply immediately. Warm regards Pip Bruce Ferguson From:Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of joanwalton Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 9:05 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Rationale for Living Theory Dear All As Jack knows well, I have for some time been committed to developing the practice of living educational theory, and know that most subscribers to this e-listing are also. However, there are many out there who don’t really understand its significance, or how it connects with other ‘ways of knowing’. A part of my thesis is about the limitations of classical science as a way of knowing, with my emphasising the ‘faith-based assumptions’ on which traditional scientific endeavours are based. The problem is that our culture is infused with these assumptions to the extent that they are often taken for granted rather than being seen as arguable. Richard Dawkins represents the extreme expression of a paradigm; and although many feel intuitively that there is perhaps something not quite right about the extreme atheism of his views, there is a difficulty in finding an argument that challenges him using his own criterion of rationality as the tool. I have attempted to put together a paper which addresses this issue. Its intended audience would be those who are not familiar with, or persuaded by, living educational theory. However, it is very difficult for me to know how effective such an argument would be – and I would very much appreciate help from those of you who accept the desirability of communicating the meaning and significance of living theories to different kinds of audiences. The intention is that what I have written in the attached document would be the first part of a paper which would then go on to describe what living theory is, the kind of contexts in which it is and could be productive, and the value it holds for anyone seeking to understand more about ‘what it means to be human’ – especially those wanting to take positive action ‘to make the world a better place’, in whatever major or minor way. So if any of you would be willing to read the attached, and give me feedback, I would be truly grateful. And if you read it, and it is just not your cup of tea, then that would be useful to know also! Best wishes, Joan