Dear All – I’ve enjoyed reading Pieter’s responses to
Arianna. They have stimulated the following responses in
italics and I particularly like Pieter’s point about cocreating (our living-theories).
Dear Arianna
Thank you for sharing your LT with us. Reading your work
- a real-life experience I went through - became part of
my LT. (I wish we could come up with a more innovative
construct than 'theory' - with apology to our dear Jack
Whitehead - but I am afraid this is something that for
some time will still draw the academic world, which still is
situated in the rut of traditional thinking about research,
to what we are involved in in some way). So, what I am
about to share is a constructing of meaning of what I have
read. I hope it will contribute to our co-constructing of
meaning.
I’m still OK with the idea of a living-educational-theory as
an individual’s explanation of educational influences in
learning. This is because of my interest in explanations for
why something happens. When I listen to people’s stories
I know that I listen for the ontological values that can be
used to explain why they are doing what they are doing,
and what it is that makes their lives worthwhile to
themselves and others. Having said this I’d be interested
in knowing of a more appropriate term.
I do like the title of your paper - suggesting the
continuous evolvement of what you know, experience and
live. However, the sub-title to me is redundant as it takes
away the blossoming of your LT, converting it into
something more of a 'report' that would satisfy the needs
of the world of traditional research. The construct 'interim'
also suggests a kind of a stop, and yet in your conclusion
on page 16 you refer to the very fact that one should
refrain from writing such a section. It is almost as if your
wonderful account of personal LT that flows from the self
is abruptly interfered with. It also interferes with the
'flowing of consciousness' (Whitehead) that you refer to -
in this case your flowing of consciousness. On page 5 you
write: this is '...theory of my life'. Yes, it is ever-flowing
and written as we go ...
In the introductory section you refer to metacognitive
skills. I was wondering if this should not be explained in
some way: is it not rather to do with strategies? What
would be the differences? Should it not rather be
'metaliving' skills/strategies?
This is the first time I have heard the term ‘metaliving’
skills/strategies, and I like it.
Does it form part of your epistemological grounding of
your study? Would you consider constructivism as part of
this - as you indicate on page 10 that a space is created
(constructed)? To me 'cognitive' is restricting. So is
'dialectic' to which you often refer.
I know what you mean, Pieter, about the restricting
nature of cognitive and dialectic. They do have limitations
but I continue to use them with Richard Peter’s point
when he wrote about extending one’s cognitive range and
concern as part of one’s educational development. I also
continue to be influenced by dialectics, with its nucleus of
contradiction. I think that both cognitive understandings
and dialectical understandings can include useful insights
in the generation of one’s own living-educational-theory.
I’ve explained how this can be done in a paper with Alan
Rayner at:
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/arjwdialtoInc
l061109.pdf
You do refer to 'emotional-self' and 'rational-self'. But this
is only part of who we are. You might like to include the
notion of whole brain thinking (Herrmann) as you yourself
refer to the importance of holistic development
(development towards a holistic self, page 7); and on age
10 holistic development of individual emotional,
psychological and spiritual evolution. How do we claim
that that LT is holistic/whole/all inclusive of who we are? I
am thinking of a construct such as 'whole brain living
theory'. Herrmann refers to the intellectual self,
safekeeping self, emotional self and experimental self.
I understand the desirability of a feeling of ‘wholeness’
and of the importance of holistic development. However,
I’ve tended to see life as a continuing process in which
any structure in our thinking can be understood as a
transition structure in a continuous process of
transformation. I’m thinking of a structure as a selfregulating, transformational whole. I suppose I resist
wholeness in the desire to remain open to the possibilities
that life itself permits.
I got excited when reading on page 6 about 'I'm
expressing the energy that flows from me'. This would
rather be a description of your ontology instead of what
you have as ontology (page 5) which is not that clear.
I like very much this point about being as clear as we can
about our ontologies. I believe our ontological values are
explanatory principles in explanations of our influences.
For example in my own writings I acknowledge a debt to
Paul Tillich for his insight about the state of being grasped
by the power of being itself. Tillich writes as a Protestant
Theologian and whilst I have no theistic tendencies I do
try to show, with the help of visual data, my embodied,
ontological value of the expression of a flow of lifeaffirming energy.
Let's refrain from considering our work as being not
authentic as what we do is real life and that is by default
authentic. What we write and how we write about it is also
authentic (as I am doing right now in my second
language): a real-life experience in meaning making. In
this regard you refer to '... nor genuinely communicative'.
Well, what I have read and what I have understood as a
narrative account of your LT is authentic! It comes from
within! So, let's also refrain from writing 'trying to
express', using words such as 'incapacity' (p5) and 'I am
not able to express this in words'.
I do hold myself accountable for being authentic in the
sense of living as fully as I can the ontological values I
claim to hold. In focusing on authenticity I’ve been
influenced by Theodor Adorno’s ‘The Jargon of
Authenticity’ where he criticizes Heidegger for using ‘I’ in
a way that remains formal whilst pretending to contain
content in itself. I remember in 1971/72 believed that I’d
got enquiry learning going with my pupils in my science
lessons. A video I made of one of my lessons, showed
that I was giving my pupils (however subtly) the
questions. I experienced myself as a ‘living contradiction’,
hence my interest in dialects. I’m still interested in living
as authentically as I can and I find helpful people’s
criticism of what I do and write in relation to the values I
claim to hold. When I say that ‘I am trying to express’ and
‘I am not able to express this in words’ it’s just that I’m
seeking to clarify something to myself and others that
isn’t as clear as I think it could be.
A few questions: (p8) Can we restore people's humanity?
Or is it about self-restore? - a metacognitive act. Or are
we responsible for creating opportunities for selfrestoring? Or facilitating the process? What is a 'primitive
society'? Who is to judge? p10: Should we create the
peaceful space or should it be co-created?
I like these questions. I don’t think we can restore other
people’s humanity. We can work at restoring and
enhancing our own. I like the idea that ‘we’ are
responsibile for creating opportunities and a process for
self-restoring. The idea and practice of self-care, is very
important to me in sustaining my productive life.
I like the idea of creating a peaceful space for myself in
self-care and of co-creating a peaceful in fulfilling my
responsibility for living my value of living-globalcitizenship as fully as possible.
p10: Is creating a dialectic space sufficient? Is it not more
than dialect?
When working with individuals whose minds are
structured by propositional logic I have found it necessary
to bring the idea of contradiction, from dialectics, into the
space. I have explained why it is necessary to move
beyond propositional and dialectical logics in generation a
living-educational-theory with its living logic at:
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/arjwdialtoInc
l061109.pdf
and
http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/bera13/jwbera13
phil010913.pdf
The ultimate question remains: What are the LTs of those
you are working with?
In generating one’s own living-educational-theory I think
of explanations of educational influence in one’s own
learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of
the social formations that influence our practice and
understandings. I’ve found that the living-theories of
those I work with help me to explain my educational
influence in their learning. I like the idea of moving
forward from these explanations into co-creating our
contributions to Living Theory research as a social
movement.
I wish you all of the best and am looking forward to cocreating living theory with you.
Me too
(I deliberately refrained from making comments about
editorial issues as I am sure you will be able to use your
metacognitive language skills to correct them)