I guess we're just talking about teaching methods.
Facilitating "experiential learning situations" sounds about right to me.
Facilitation without (any) discussion and evaluation is the stuff that
sounds dangerous. But we're in violent agreement of course :-)
Personally I have no problem with the word "revolution" if it arises
naturally from evolutionary processes - that's not a contradiction to
me - progress always involves disruptive step changes as well as
gradual changes. (The only problem with revolution is the "violent"
baggage that frighten's the horses.)
On 5/22/06, keith milner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
> Thank you. Talk is futile, as you imply, if it is on its own. If
> revolution is possible without violent force, action must
> be allied with reflection, of course. Realization of wisdom must
> surely begin and end with the method of "teaching" or learning. Most
> (all?) academic institutions have as their first priority to preserve
> themselves and therefore to protect the status quo. A revolutionary
> change should involve a change in the mode of inquiry from emphasizing
> instruction of knowledge and ideas to the emergence of wisdom from
> experiential learning situations. Such a change in emphasis places the
> life experience of the learners at the centre of the learning
> situation, and the task of the "teacher" becomes to find the means of
> drawing out of all the individual learners, including himself/herself
> the innate wisdom that is shared in real time. Such a revolutionary
> change would require that teachers should withold what they know and
> honour instead that which is brought to the learning situation by all
> the learners through a process of participatory democratic
> decision-making leading to action in the world, and certainly within
> every area of the life of the institution itself. Such a process would
> bring about continuous revolutionary change in the institution. Or is
> this last a contradiction in terms? If institutions are to be involved
> in the development of the wisely behaving society, then they must begin
> by changing themselves. You can teach people about wisdom, or you can
> help them discover it through action in an environment defined and
> controlled by everyone. Academics responsibility then becomes to lead
> from the back. Dangerous stuff!
> On 22 May 2006, at 06:35, ian glendinning wrote:
> > Keith, David, Nick et al,
> > Keith, talk is futile is it ?
> > The phrase being picked-up on here is
> > "the capacity to realize what is of value in life"?
> > That's "realize" as in "make real".
> > Like David, the Pirsigian connection rings with me every time I hear
> > "value" and I've been making the same links with Wisdom, ever since
> > Nick raised the idea with us all.
> > Talk (exclusive talk and nothing else) is worse than frustration,
> > granted, but change with no talk at all sounds like revolution by
> > violent force. Talk is one of those necessary key interactions that
> > are part of the process of "doing something" of value.
> > (Many of us have remarked that bounding the subject of wisdom within
> > educational circles will prove limiting, but it's a start.) I think
> > Nick's aim is to take academia beyond any (valueless) sterile bounds -
> > to change the meaning of the word "academic".
> > Regards
> > Ian
> > On 5/21/06, keith milner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I think all talk of wisdom within the safe and sterile boundaries of
> >> academic discussion is futile. We've had thousands of years of it and
> >> it remains confined pretty much within the faculty of observation with
> >> little impact on human behaviour. The more worthwhile pursuit of
> >> wisdom is in action, in interaction, in role-play and in experiential
> >> learning methods. Only by such means may we test our universal and
> >> archetypal awareness of wisdom.
> >> Keith Milner
> >> On 20 May 2006, at 23:17, David M wrote:
> >> > Hi Nick
> >> >
> >> > "the capacity to realize what is of value in life"?
> >> >
> >> > This seems a very good starting point to me. It is grounded in what
> >> we
> >> > are able to achieve in practice, but better still it requires that
> >> we
> >> > consider and articulate what is of value to us. I wonder if other
> >> > members have read Robert Pirsig's novels and are aware of the
> >> > relevance of his ideas to such an exploration of values and the
> >> > goal of eudaimonia?
> >> >
> >> > I also suspect that Roy Bhaskar's critical realist school of thought
> >> > may be a useful source of ideas and fellowship. Anyone else aware
> >> > of Bhaskar?
> >> >
> >> > Here's an interview for those who may be interested:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/rbhaskar_rbi.html
> >> >
> >> > regards
> >> > David Morey
> >> >