Dear All,
Just some odd thoughts regarding the concepts of
critique and criticism, which always tend to set my teeth on edge because of a
certain kind of definitive and adversarial assumption - indeed what might be
called a presumption - that I feel underlies these concepts as a product of
propositional and dialectic logics. I am more keen on 'discernment'. I am less
inclined to critique definitive paradigms than to discern that they are
inescapably unrealistic and inadequate to account for natural processes of
energy flow, so that whilst they may be useful if used mindfully as tools of
enquiry, calculation and invention, they can be dangerous if assumed
to represent 'objective truth'.
Correspondingly, I feel that the adversarial desire
to critique and criticise - as distinct from opening up creative possibilities -
is part and parcel of a rationalistic culture that is forever seeking the
convenience of being able to reify natural fluidity into a definitive system of
hard and fast axioms as eternal and absolute 'rules to live by'. (As Plato is
said to have said: 'Oh to find a solid without flux!'). In other words we keep
trying to fix the fluid 'Laws' of Nature' and write them down in a book of
'Standard Practice'.
No doubt a critic might claim here - as a 'standard
defence' - that I am adversarially critiquing critique, but that is
not my intention. My intention is to help raise awareness of and relax the
limitations of definitive, prescriptive theory that both arises from and fuels
adversarial thought in the first place. I am not rationalistically countering
concrete thesis with concrete antithesis. I am not offering 'an alternative
model/approach'. I am suggesting that there is a form of awareness and logical
enquiry that can include and transform the 'other'. There is a difference
between the Popperian proposal and falsification of hypotheses, and
recognising that if an hypothesis is falsifiable it must be definitive and
so is already false. (The Cretan who informs you that all Cretans are liars can
testify to this).
To my mind, the very nature of 'living theory' -
and indeed 'inclusionality' - is that it is not a definitive practice - i.e. it
does not make definitive proposals about nature or human nature - and so
transcends the logical province of critique/criticism, being more to do with
lifelong learning and its communication in the world of our experience in
an open space geometry, not our simplistic models of a closed space geometry.
Unlike rationalistic enquiry, living enquiry is not bound to start with a
definition (axiomatic closure), but commences with an opening and continues with
more openings.
To anyone who begins their enquiry with a
definition - as has become standard rationalistic practice - the very idea of
commencing with an opening is indeed impenetrable.
So I might just ask this:
Is it apt to seek to criticise/critique - as
distinct from understand - 'Love', 'Life', 'Evolution', 'Learning', 'Nature',
'Openness' and (non-objective) 'Truth'?
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:21
PM
Subject: Re: Rationale for Living
Theory
Hi
Barry, a warm hello from Japan. I second the thoughts contained within your
email which is completely keeping with , as I understand it, scholastic
approaches to difference. It is nice to be informed at regular intervals
of the journey others are taking, however I was looking for a more focused
response to the questions others had asked Sarah. Looking at the archives the
question you keep asking Sarah has adopted a rhetorical aspect to it. I am
wondering how you will be able to critique in such a manner that your
scholarship and engagement with the issues of living educational
theory is clearly understood when there appears to be a lacking of any
evidence from you to show that you are understanding the concepts by
offering your own work to support your claims to know from an insider view of
knowing. A critique is as much of an educational process and any other
enquiry, the weight of evidence to support the critique rests firmly on
the credibility and trust ability of the educational account produced by the
author. I am looking forward to seeing your accounts on the list and helping
you , with others, clarify meanings and my understandings where
appropriate.
Barry,
I am intrigued at the idea of impenetrability as a Buddhist teaching on
mindfulness suggest that in terms of knowing, when we think we know we are
actually solidify the boundaries of our knowing. I remember clearly that my
supervisor, prior to my viva defence, reminded me of my knowledge claims and
what it was that I claimed to know. He was less than enchanted with me after
several moments of truthful reflection on my part, as I responded: “ In
truth, after all the years of study, all I can claim to truly know is that one
day I will die, and the inescapable truthfulness of my knowing that I do not
know.” Smile. I struggle to see living education theory in the
light of checks and balances and embrace an open conceptualising of a
flow of consciousness that ebbs and flows with the living dynamics of my
praxis and enquiry. Perhaps I have a very non Buddhist attachment to the
understandings that the concept of my constricted “I” is contextualized in the
power and authority of my own being on one level of understanding and
dissolved completely on another level as I construct a different understanding
of being in and being part of a living dynamic flow of conscious learning and
communication. In my work in Asia, I am finding that my western forms of
knowing take themselves so seriously and the joy of exploring knowing without
boundaries by consciously seeking to dissolve them opens up for me new
understanding and teaching. In Asia there is a great story about an elephant
who wanted to get through and small door and no matter what he did with
his great strength, he could not pass through the door. Of course there was a
wise monk ( as there always is..smile) who said when asked by the elephant; “
Ajarn, How can I pass through the door”. The monk , looking
gently in to the elephants eyes answered: “stop thing that you are an
elephant!”
Hugs
and smile to all the elephants out there..
Je
Kan
From:
Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Barry Hymer
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:17
PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
Rationale for Living Theory
Dear
Sarah - Are you genuinely trying to arrive at a deep and
disinterested understanding of living educational theory? If so,
why have you failed to respond to any of the thoughtful, considered,
insightful and emotionally congruent responses to your first airing of
the request? I see no evidence of an equivalent response in your latest
email. I know of no advocate of living theory who insists that it can
and should be understood and practised by all practitioners, although it
seems to me to speak with great power to those who can approach it with
openness, humility and grace. To those who don't, perhaps it remains
impenetrable. Perhaps that's a weakness of living
theory? You might choose to include this thought in your
critique.
All
good wishes in Japan,
Dr
Barry Hymer
Director, still thinking uk ltd
Visiting
Fellow, Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT), Newcastle University
www.barryhymer.co.uk
"The
truly great advances of this generation will be made by those who can make
outrageous connections, and only a mind which knows how to play can do that."
(Nagle Jackson)
"I'm a playing boy, not a working boy." (Tom,
5)
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1748 -
Release Date: 26/10/2008
19:53