Dear All
I should like to briefly engage with the idea of personal Ontology vs.
educational Influence that has been raised here this week. I wish to
advocate that the phenomenological intention of any account produced by an
individual being-in-the-world should be the quality of the Ontological
account not that of the influence it may or may not have on others. In
other words, our concern should be that of constructing the most convincing
Ontological account for ourselves and once convincing ourselves in its
rigour and authenticity, make it public and simply let it be and take its
course. I do believe that we are the best evaluators of our accounts and
our Ontology. If we manage to sincerely convince ourselves then others
will be influenced and if not then we have done our utmost and should be
contented, leave it be and just let it lie.
To argue my point, I should like to ostensibly point to my own attempt at
constructing my proposed Heuristics of human existence.
At the moment, my heuristics of human existence is my direct, firsthand,
dialectic, self-evaluative, Ontological/phenomenological living educational
theory account of my embodied self-constructive transformation into my
becoming a constructing critical psychologist of the human subject. This
transformative expedition is carried out with a view to extend my
epistemological contribution and influence in regards to my commitment to
my conception of the human subject (Serper, 1999, 2003, 2005). These
contribution and influence are designed to improve my Ontological growth as
a human being and a professional theoretician of human existence.
Still, this influence is not my phenomenological intention. My intention
is simply to construct for myself a heuristics by which I strive to carry
out, answer and account for myself a manner to critically engage and study
the human subject as I conceive him/her to be. This heuristic tool and
enquiry are based upon my own learning from my own wholly theoretical,
historical and philosophical analysis (Serper, 1999) of the way in which
the human subject has been studied, analysed and conceived in social
science, in general, and empirical psychology, in particular. My concern
is to construct a concrete heuristic possibility in the study and
conception of the human subject from which I am most contented. By
contended I mean, giving me the most self-satisfaction, integrity,
self-fulfillment, self-respect, Ontological security, well-being,
self-gratification and feeling of mutual respect and integrity in my
interrelationship with others.
One of my main standards of judgement in regards to the quality of my
account as I should like it to be and, in turn, the quality for my
self-evaluation, self-contentment and contentment is its clarity and
coherence to others. It is my duty for myself to make sure others
understand what I am telling them, provided of course, that this is my wish
at that given time. My duty ends there, though. Any agreement or
disagreement, conviction or refusal to engage is beyond me, my scope and my
intention. My responsibility is exclusively, utterly and solely for myself
and my account. I need to make it the most convincing one for myself. The
influence on others is beyond my responsibility. Any attempt for me to do
so is scholastic, demagogic, preaching and ill pedagogy. Who gives me the
right to inflict my personal account on others? And everything we ever say
as autonomous, personal, distinctive beings is our personal account and the
product of our embodied epistemology and ontology. Let's just construct,
design, self-understand and make it public as part of our our ethical
development and duty for ourselves. The rest is not up to us. It is up to
the other. We have done and fulfilled our duty in all its aspects. Let's
cal it a day.
In constructing the heuristic enquiry/tool and heuristics, I critically
engage with and draw on and whatever approach, idea and position that seems
to me to be relevant and appropriate to my heuristics construction and
enquiry into my own Ontological and epistemological, professional and
personal Ontology and emerging being-in-the-world. By professional I mean
as an academic theoretician of human existence and its systematic and
analytical study. By personal, I mean my own Ontological/Phenomenological
development and growth as a human being, whom I regard myself to be and
become and whom I wish and intend myself to become and be.
My point is clear, let us worry about our personal Ontological accounts.
If we construct a convincing account for ourselves our then influence will
be enriched by default.
My concern is that constantly worrying about the educational influence we
have on others, what others think about/of us and our work and others'
learning from us will only do damage to our concern. I call upon any
concrete, living 'I' in-the-world to worry exclusively about the quality of
his/her account and to self-evaluate it on his/her own.
One of the unpleasant heritages from positivism is the need to justify and
rationalise our self-immersion in our personal Ontology. Positivism taught
us that going inward into our personal and personality is the equivalent of
narcissism. We need to go outward to justify our preoccupation with our
personal Ontology. I see the emphasis of influence on others and utter
obsession with it as part of it. My question is why? Why do we have to
justify our sincere ambition to understand ourselves in the designing of
our future becoming? Why do we have to justify IT and not its quality? Why
do we have to be distracted from our personal ontology to worry our the
influence our account may/will or will/may not have on others. Why is my
self-evaluation of a lesser quality and critical rigour than your
evaluation of my account? Doesn't true dialectic mean an exchange of
ready-made accounts?
I am bounded to myself. I am obliged to myself. I owe it to myself. I am
and I am and I am And I become and I shall be. This is my Influence on
humanity - my very Ontology and the fact that I am and becoming me.
Alon
|