I, myself, like to think that if one person fully understands, fully 
engages with and gets a feel of my meanings and language it is already 
a whole 100% more than before.  If another than it is 200%; Third 300% 
Etc, Etc.

Equally, I went back to H. G., Gadamer yesterday; predominantly to his 
Truth And Method.  And to his claim that we can never fully 
convey/express our intentions.  And that it all essentially about a 
participation in a [dialectical] dialogue of questions and answers 
rather than making [propositional] statements.  I must say that I am 
discovering in Gadamer insights that I have not fully acknowledged 
previously and am learning to appreciate how great of a hermeneutician 
and thinker he was.  And so I continue to spend my days asking and 
answering.

Alon
Quoting Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear All,
>
>
> 1.    It seems to me that we have examples of "World
> Class" practitioner research among the postings over
> the past two months, that have been recognised and
> appreciated by respondents.
>
> (I have valued Pip's wisdom, Sarah's practical
> classroom-based work with colleagues, Alan's amazing
> creative thinking, and Yaakub's scholarship.)
>
> What is it that makes these contributions "World
> Class"?
>
> 2.   I think we have an issue with the expression
> "practitioner research".
>
> From the postings we seem to have a very broad
> inclusive understanding of "practitioner".
>
> I have an anxiety that colleagues with a narrower view
> thinking of a practitioner as a person involved in
> hospital, social work, business, police, church, and
> school settings, may feel excluded from our
> discussions.
>
> It's the complex, academic, philosophical
> language....what I call "esoteric"....that is the
> problem.
>
> I understand esoteric as:
>  "intended or understood  by only a small number of
> people with a specialised knowledge or interest".
>
> Many posting express appreciation and admiration for
> these discussions.
>
> However, for  colleagues busily working in various
> professional settings reflecting about practical
> issues, seeking to improve their practice, or clients'
> experience, their students learning.......in the
> everyday language of their profession.....
>
> what constitutes "quality" in terms they can
> understand?
>
> Do we need different qualities of judgement for this
> 'practitioner' research in a narrower sense so that
> our discussions are EXoteric...likely to be understood
> by a wider audience...?
>
> In the spirit of Advent......"light to all"
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ###
> --- Keith Kinsella <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yaakub, Pip, and others
>>
>> I'm just 'coming up for air' after being swept along
>> in the multiple wave
>> minor  'tsunami' of ideas, references, questions,
>> and suggestions that my little
>> query  about what being 'invitational' seemed to
>> generate. Thank you both,
>> especially  you Yaakub, for your warm responsiveness
>> and generosity of spirit and
>> time, in  helping me expand my understanding both of
>> this 'theory' (I didn't
>> know I  was 'doing a theory' - therefore, I fit into
>> the unintentional
>> category - thanks  for the references, Pip) and the
>> exciting flow of ideas about
>> Ubuntu that  accompanied these.
>>
>> I printed out your last three postings,  Yaakub - so
>> I could get a sense of
>> the whole as well as the parts - and found  that
>> you'd written over 5000 words
>> in the short space of a day, full of ideas,
>> references, suggestions for
>> further study, personal appreciations, and so on.
>> Amazing! And all written in what
>> I'd now call a 'bracing' invitational  style: it
>> felt like I'd been guided on
>> a difficult walk  along the cliffs in a high wind,
>> that I'd been taken to
>> the(my) edge on a number  of occasions, but had been
>> enabled to return safely
>> feeling a little tired and  spaced out, but full of
>> ideas and possibilities.
>>
>> So thank you for making the effort to generate
>> those Ubuntu inspired waves
>> within me....it will take a while for me to make my
>> own sense of them, and see
>> how I might work with the many aspects  you've
>> offered, both to help myself
>> as well show the two African students on the  MA
>> programme, a possible path
>> they might want to tread in their dissertations.
>> I'm thinking particularly of
>> the Zimbabwean who I'm sure is desperate to find
>> ways of making his and his
>> family/friends/colleagues' lives more livable. And I
>>  think this is where your
>> point about situating ubuntu in its historical
>> context could be so powerful as,
>> at the moment as you indicate, this has been
>> subjugated/marginalised by
>> mainstream thinking from the Western canon, and  in
>> danger of re-appearing cut off
>> from its roots and context. More on  this
>> later....but definitely interested
>> in working towards crafting 'a multiple,  complex,
>> and inclusional
>> epistemology of Ubuntu'
>>
>> Still pondering on the many ideas you  offered on
>> the impact and 'doing' of
>> invitational. As I read it the first time,  and
>> using Polanyi's formulation of
>> tacit knowledge,  I got the feeling I  was becoming
>> more aware of the many
>> 'subsidiaries'  that synthesised/were integrated to
>> form the 'proximal' of being
>> invitational. And this will allow me to dig deeper
>> into these roots of the
>> invitational, and expand my practice/behaviour into
>> the larger space created by
>>  the languaging we've been doing. I hope this isn't
>> mysterious: I'm just
>> saying  that talking about invitational and
>> exploring its meaning has given me a
>> kind of  permission to actually do more of it.
>>
>> Your references to the 'vessel' metaphor and the
>> letting go of others'
>> categories also resonated as it's something I'm
>> still very  much in the process of
>> doing. The 'conduit' or connectivity metaphor that
>> you're  now exploring
>> reminded me of the pair practice of 'pushing hands'
>> in t'ai  chi - something very
>> subtle is passing between the hands just enough to
>> define a  very dynamic
>> boundary where it's unclear who is
>> pushing/retreating and  where any 'edges' might
>> be, all within a conduit of continuous  movement.  I
>> wonder if this might be a
>> crude illustration of Alan's  inclusional boundary
>> which connects rather than
>> separates? Does it suggest in a  physical/energic
>> mode how we might take
>> steps 'towards mutual  availability', that would be
>> experienced as invitational,
>> appreciative,  shared? And what kind of standard of
>> judgement would this help
>> us live in  supporting the education of others
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Brian E. Wakeman
> Education adviser
> Dunstable
> Beds
>
>