Education is a mess – is there an integrative way to teach?

I have updated an introduction to the SunWALK model of human-centred studies;Ā 

SunWALK: Summary of the main meanings of the components represented inĀ 
the model and its ā€˜logo-diagram-mandalaā€™ ā€“ providing a teacherā€™s process modelĀ 

Ā 

sunwalk-logo

.

SunWALK: Summary of the main meanings of the components represented inĀ 

the model and its ā€˜logo-diagram-mandalaā€™ ā€“ providing a teacherā€™s process model

Give me a brief introduction:

SunWALK grew out of reflection on many years of teaching children and adults and particularly a period of five years teaching in a RC middle school ā€“ theorizing my practice via a PhD and practising my theory day-to-day.

SunWALK simply says that the quality of all of our lives will be higher if we undertake all education within the framework of deepening our humanity. Ā 

Deepening our humanity is a matter of developing technical competencies within the chief dimensions of the human spirit;Ā Caring (the Humanities), CreativityĀ (the Arts) andĀ CriticalityĀ (the Sciences & Philosophy) ā€“ all in local, national and world Communities. Ā These are the ā€˜4Csā€™ of the model ā€“ 3 intra-personal, 1 inter-personal.

We and our one planet will be better of if all of the technical stuff, from learning to read to Masters degrees in engineering, take place in the context of humanization/the 4Cs. Ā This requires international, national, school & classroom commitment to deepening the best of being human as the context for learning the technical.

We canā€™t afford to have character and morality and compassion asĀ hoped-forĀ accidentalĀ outcomes. Ā Moral Education, PSME, RE etc. donā€™t work as bolt-on extras. Ā They need to be the general context in which competencies are developed.

It is a model based on theĀ energy flowĀ of the human spirit ā€“ that is the given. That is physical, mental and spiritual energy that flows through all living human beings. Ā 

That energy, the human spirit, is the true ā€™stuff of educationā€™. Ā With the best of the past teachers need to equip children to face tomorrowā€™s challenges which will always be a mixture of new problems combined with eternally recurrent problems. Ā Building all education with will be the medium with which the teacher works to nurture and challenge balanced development.

Today we have lost the balance between specialization, and whole-systems thinking and acting ā€“ SunWALK model brings into harmony the best of ā€˜Westernā€™ & ā€˜Easternā€™ world-views.Ā 

OK ā€“ so whatā€™s the ā€˜Sunā€™ and the ā€˜WALK in the modelā€™?

The ā€˜Sunā€™ = the individualā€™s spiritual inspiration & values sources ā€“ accumulated and ongoing, as operating internally and as expressed in speech and behaviour.Ā 

WALK = Willing & Wise Action through Loving & Knowing ā€“ here seen as the general goal for education, and as the interiority, character and behaviour of the student.Ā 

The model/logo combines a range of sub-models including the following:

a) An ā€˜interiorā€™ model of the human spirit ā€“ in relation to ā€˜the worldā€™.

b) A model for re-positioning education within being & becoming human ā€“ in the world with others.

c) A general model of the curriculum ā€“ for primary, secondary and higher education.

d) A framework for the analysis and evaluation of teaching episodes or projects.

e) A model of education that makes non-faith-specific spiritual and moral education intrinsic to all learning.

Ā 

THE MODEL AND THE PROCESSĀ IN ONE (long) SENTENCE: –Ā 

The SunWALK model of spiritualizing pedagogy sees human education as theĀ 

storied

developmentĀ ofĀ 

meaning, which isĀ 

constructed, andĀ de-constructed,Ā 

physically,Ā mentallyĀ andĀ spiritually, throughĀ 

WiseĀ &Ā Willing

Action, viaĀ 

LovingĀ andĀ KnowingĀ ā€“ developed inĀ 

Community, through the

ā€˜Dialectical SpiritualizationĀ [1]ā€™ofĀ 

Caring,Ā CreativityĀ &Ā CriticalityĀ processes, all undertaken in the light of theĀ 

ā€˜Sunā€™ of chosen higher-order

valuesĀ andĀ beliefs, using best available,appropriateĀ 

content.

These underlined concerns are central components and focuses of the practice and theory in the model.Ā 

This is an intense combination of theory and practice. Ā It automatically requires the teacher to practice their theory and theorise their practice ā€“ dynamically as practice-based research. Ā It automatically enables the classroom to be connected to the school & community as a whole and to e.g. a relevant department in a university.

It attempts to suffuse all teaching with the demands, challenges and joy of being human in the world with others. Ā But it seeks to bring together the Whole and the parts, the ineffable and the concepts ā€“ not just concepts because as Heschel (1971:7) says, ā€œConcepts are delicious snacks with which we try to alleviate our amazement.ā€

The diagram/logo/

The outer ring of the SunWALK logo combines two dimensions:

1 ā€˜Community i.e. the social,interpersonal dimension of interaction with other individuals or groups.

2Ā  ā€˜Cultural sourcesā€™ including such dimensions as the traditions, the political & the legal. Ā 

The three major divisions of the arts,sciences and humanities are here thought of as the stored, yet potentially dynamic, accumulation of knowledge and beliefs and procedures ā€“ everything from galleries to written laws of physics that the individual can draw upon or be influenced by. This is the ā€˜stuff out thereā€™ rather than the interiority of consciousness in which there is the perpetual flow and re-shaping, focusing de-focusing etc. of heart-mind.

In SunWALK everything within the inner circle = a representation of ā€˜interiorityā€™, i.e. human consciousness ā€“ the human spirit.Ā 

The human spirit is presented intra-personally as 3 ā€˜voicesā€™ ā€“ 3 modes of being & of engaging with reality & of knowing.

The three emanate from the singleness of ā€˜heart-mindā€™, consciousness. Ā 

They are presented (metaphorically) as the ā€˜primary coloursā€™ ofĀ CreativityĀ (the yellow of inspiration),Ā CriticalityĀ (the blue of reason) &Ā CaringĀ (the red warmth of love).Ā 

Creativity is the ā€˜Iā€™ voice of subjective engagement via an artistic medium ā€“ it is concerned with subjective knowing and is particularly related to the core virtue ā€˜beautyā€™ and its products are of course ā€˜the Artsā€™.Ā 

Criticality is the ā€˜ITā€™ voice of objective engagement which enables progress in the Sciences ( & Maths., Philosophy and ā€˜criticalā€™ studies). It is concerned with objective knowing ā€“ and it is related particularly to the core virtue ā€˜truthā€™. Ā The products of course are the sciences and technology Ā – but also philosophy and critical studies.

Caring is the ā€˜WEā€™ voice which enables moral engagement ā€“ for progress in the moral domain and in service of others. It is concerned with social knowing ā€“ related particularly to the core virtue ā€˜goodnessā€™ and to ā€˜the Humanitiesā€™.Ā 

All three of course need to be conditioned by the pre-eminent virtue of justice. Ā All students need to have these ways of engaging with reality developed in a balanced way. Ā High technical competence combined with moral dwarfism leads to ā€¦ā€¦

The physical dimension is seen as the instrument for the flow of spirit in all of its forms ā€“ e.g. via dance, drama & PE and sports.

Each individual develops her/his I, WE and IT voices, the 3Cs, via socialization, starting in the family, the local community and then later in formal education. A sense of justice is seen as paramount intrapersonally as well as inter-personally i.e. it enables us to engage with that which is beautiful, good or true with balance, clarity & due weight.

The essential process in all 4Cs is multi-level dialogue. In the case of the individual dialogue is seen as meditation, reflection and inner-talk. In the case of groups it is dialectical process via consultation.

The ā€˜Celticā€™ knot that surrounds the central shield indicates that the 3Cs are simply aspects of the one human spiritā€“ the flow of ā€˜heart-mindā€™.

The white shield at the centre represents the meditative state in which there is no ā€˜focusedā€™ engagement via one of the 3Cs ā€“ and in which there is relatively little of the interference or chatter that we experience in the unquiet mind.Ā 

This can enable us to ā€˜go beyond ourselvesā€™, i.e. transcend our normal knowing ā€“ any of the 3Cs (I, WE or IT modes), as gateways, can be a pathway to the transcendent and to subsequent improved insight into reality.

The black dot at the centre is the ā€˜well-springā€™ of consciousness. For artists (and great scientists) it is the Muse. For religionists it is the voice of God within (albeit distorted by the dust of self). For non-religionists it is the inner source of spirit as energy & inspiration ā€“ the bits of realization and insight that come to us for which we donā€™t make an effort.

Educating the human spirit is seen as nurturing, and cultivating, the life-force which culminates in the developed human who, through higher-order consciousness, realizes abilities from within Caring, Creative or Critical engagements.Ā 

Teaching is seen as nurturing and cultivating what is normally present, almost from birth, & certainly by the time we go to school ā€“ namely the flow of spirit expressed in nascent forms of Caring, Creativity, and Criticality ā€“ in Community with others. Holistic Learning takes place when the learner uses Creativity, Criticality and Caring ā€“ in Community ā€“ inspired by higher-order values ā€“ in dynamic combinations such as Creativity providing texts for criticality ā€“ which then, via dialogue, produce/attract the spirit for more creativity.

In SunWALK spirituality is not a dimension; it is the model as a whole. In SunWALK moral education is not a dimension ā€“ it is intrinsic to all of its praxis.Ā 

The SunWALK logo can also be seen as a mandala, or even as a plan drawing for a fountain or an ā€˜arts centre of lightā€™! Ā 

SunWALK is a major shift to a process view of the world, of being human and of educating our young people. It rejects a worldview that is limited to the mechanistic, the ā€˜human-as-computer, the fragmentary and the materialistic; seeking instead modelling that is based on flow/process, holism and the spiritual. Ā Ā 

SunWALK is designed to enable teachers and students to become agents of change to transform a world that is still operated as atomistic, mechanistic and materialistic into one that is holistic, dialogic, and derived from the best processes and products of the human spirit.

The SunWALK logo and model of education Copyright Roger Prentice 1995 & 2009

.

Ā 

—–0—–

SEE ALSO these allied blogs –

Ā Human-centred coursesĀ ā€“

Ā Dictionary of Concepts

Home is HERE i.e. my ‘meta-blog’Ā -The Ā“1000 ways ā€¦of Celebrating the human spirit

Ā 

—–0—–

Ā 

Getting our I, WE & IT voices Balanced – inspired by Ken Wilber

Getting our I, WE & IT Voices Balanced

 

Are your voices in a twist? We each have 3 God-given voices to sing different kinds of songs. Imagine if one voice dominates & consequently the other 2 ‘shrivel’ to almost nothing. Where would we be?

 

Answer ā€“ where we and our world are now. This is how Ken Wilber explains our situation.

 

All great wisdom traditions (and Perennial Philosophy) used to believe in the Great Chain of Being which taught that reality was a rich tapestry of levels starting with matter:

spirit

 

soul

mind

body

 

matter

Wilber suggests reality now is best understood as a Great Nest of Being ā€“ like a set of ‘Russian Dolls’ ā€“ same levels ā€“ ‘matter-body-mind-soul-spirit’ but like an onion. (All are forms of spirit?)

 

He speaks of three historical periods: 1) before the Enlightenment = pre-modernism; 2) after the Enlightenment = modernism; 3) recently = post-modernism.

 

What did the good side of modernism give us? The good side of modernism = we were able to develop separately the 3 voices of I. WE & IT – I, (Art) WE (Morality) and IT (Science)

 

I = the subjective voice that we express in the arts (Beauty ā€“ and subjective truth)

WE = the moral voice that we express in the Humanities including religion (Goodness)

IT = the objective voice that we express in the Sciences (Objective Truth)

 

In pre-modern times I, WE and IT were not separate voices. Before the Enlightenment the Church decided everything. It forced Galileo to recant the truth of what he saw scientifically through his telescope. The Church insisted the sun went around the earth. It also decided what was and wasn’t good, and what was and wasn’t beautiful in the arts.

 

After the Enlightenment modernism gave us three voices developing separately I, WE and IT which were also three separate ways of knowing which I prefer to express thus:

 

‘I knowing’ = the subjective voice in the Arts (Beauty as pleasing patterns en-formed) -Creativity

‘WE knowing’ = the moral voice in the Humanities inc. religion (Goodness as fellow-feeling) -Caring

‘IT knowing’ = the objective voice in the Sciences (Truth as sorting, measuring, replicating) -Criticality

 

The bad side of modernism = the domination by the IT voice (‘Scientism’) to create ‘Flatland’. That is the ITness of science has become so powerful that it has caused the other two voices, more or less, to become invalid. This has been called the dis-enchantment of the modern world.

 

Therefore:

Pre-modernism = science, the humanities & the arts couldn’t develop separate to ‘Church’

Modernism = all three could develop separately (includes separation of Church and State)

Post-modernism means different things to different people a) a reaction against modernism, b) a counter-balance to (Flatland) modernism or c) a continuation of modernism

 

More narrowly postmodernism = the idea that there is no ‘truth’ only interpretations, and all interpretations are socially constructed (by elites to exploit groups e.g. women or colonies)

 

Important in pm = ‘there is no grand narrative’ that binds – such as the Christian story. My answer = ‘yes there is – being human in the world, with others, seeking truth, beauty, goodness and justice = the perennial grand narrative’.

 

The bad side of modernism = the empiricism of science has like a cuckoo forced out ‘I knowing’ and ‘WE knowing’. Inappropriately applying the scientific way of knowing (empiricism) to other areas of life is called scientism . (Creates ‘Flatland’)

 

Fundamentalism is, in part, derived by rejection of modernism ā€“ especially separation of state & religion. Ultimately it = the unwillingness to let the I, WE & IT voices grow separately.

 

The good side of post-modernism ā€“ it teaches us that

1 Reality is not always pre-given, but in some significant ways is a construction, an interpretation. The belief that reality is simply given, is referred to as ‘the myth of the given’.

2 Meaning is context-dependent, and contexts are boundless.

3 Cognition must therefore privilege no single perspective. (SEE Wilber p121)

 

Conclusion: We still validate science (the empirical and the rational), though we teach it poorly, but we don’t validate contemplation. Contemplation can also be thought of as heart-knowing – which is inspiration that follows meditation, especially the experience of at-one-ment/egolessness.

 

Our interior self is a flow of ‘heart-mind’. – separating heart and mind has been a disaster that has invalidated, or diminished, the feminine principle in men and women. (Heart-mind is an ancient idea ‘xin’ or ‘hsin’ in Chinese).

 

I, WE and IT ways need each other. If a person gets inspiration from contemplation (as Einstein did) s/he needs to order it or check it with IT knowing and WE knowing. Science needs I knowing and WE knowing as well. The Humanities need I knowing as well as IT knowing. Art needs WE & IT knowing.

 

Organized religion has suffered because it couldn’t stay clear on I, WE and IT knowing. It has made a comeback via the arts and ‘pick and mix’ spirituality. Its special domain, like art is I knowing – + WE knowing as inspired by what it sees as the revealed word of God.

 

Action needed = The world (especially the religions, governments & parents) need to nurture the I, WE and IT voices to achieve balance and concord. Unity, peace & development depend on validating objective truth and knowing, subjective truth and knowing and the moral wisdom that lies at the heart of all of the great traditions. The call is to the balancing of these three ‘voices’ of the human spirit.

 

My educational model towards this end I have called SunWALK = we need to teach our children, and ourselves, to pursue Wise, Action, through Loving and Knowing guided by the Sun of higher-order values SEE www.SunWALK.org.uk Roger Prentice Email; rogerprentice@bigfoot.com Ver 8.7.06

Adapted from and inspired by the work of Ken Wilber in The Marriage of Sense & Soul

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD. Summaries are HERE

 

40 Meditation Practices – the Chris Corrigan collection

buddha.jpgSource Wiki on Meditation

A certain Chris Corrigan has assembled 40 meditation practices (a few links need re-newing)

 

 

Forty meditation practices

 

40 meditation practices in 4 positions

Walking Meditation

Standing Meditation

Sitting meditation

Lying meditation

Be sure to visit Chris Corrigan’s amazing collection of stuff HERE

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD. Summaries are HERE

Story and Personal Myth in making our selves, and our education, whole

island.jpg

My personal myth Island, Shoreline and Ocean ā€“

a view of story in Personal Development and in Holistic Education

Introduction:

By way of an introduction here are a few succinct thoughts. Skip this if you want to go straight to my ‘personal myth’;

Myth operates in us – its part of being human – like philosophizing. Therefore we should make the most of it – in terms of the mythology we make, and that with which we choose to identify.

Story is central to our meaning-making and how we (choose) to make sense of the world and give account of our encounters and experiences.

Myth, as opposed to story generally, is about our deepest concerns and is characterized as narrative that gives account of the unknown and unknowable as well as some of the known. E.g. we die but we don’t know what, if anything, happens after that. Myth creates and is derived from beliefs.

Myth intrapersonally is the clothing we give to the psycho-spiritual dynamics of inner experience.

Myth interpersonally is the stories we tell each other to explain encounters with the (mainly) unknown and unknowable.

Karen Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth is a must because it makes clear the relationship between myth and religion and world-views.

“Without myth, cult, ritual and ethical living, a sense of the sacred dies,” says Armstrong. Without the discipline of mythical thinking and practice, it was difficult for many to avoid despair. The dark epiphanies of the 20th century can be blamed on “the absence of a viable mythology” that could help us face the unspeakable. Guardian review by Tim Radford

A personal myth operates in us whether we choose to articulate it or not. It is closely allied to what one psychologist called ‘our personal script’ and the another (Kelly) called our set of ‘personal constructs’.

We can help in healing ourselves by articulating our personal myth in comparison and contrast to the group myths around us – or that exist as historical artifacts.

Restorying, (e.g.by writing different versions of) our personal myth can enable us to re-frame our personal experience and gain degrees of control and depths of energy that previously were denied us through locked-up pain.

Creating a personal myth can facilitate better self-understanding and there is potentially a powerful tool for teaching and learning.

My personal myth is here;

The ‘Island, Shoreline and Ocean’ personal Myth

The personal myth that follows was written as a ā€˜one-pageā€™ way of expressing a) a sense of the relationship with the cosmos, the Whole, and b) of a range of the ideas in, and behind, SunWALK. Jane is part of me, perhaps the same Jane as in Janeā€™s Short Story in Chapter 1.

The personal myth is an attempt at re-storying one kind of knowing. A felt need to undertake a re-storying of knowing can lie in acknowledgement of the fact that we know, and need to know, and need to express that knowing, in more ways than the empirical-reasoning mode ā€“ hence Island, Shoreline, Ocean. To admit other ways of knowing, is to admit that in our wholeness we are more than our senses and our reasoning. It is also to admit that in our knowing we are surrounded by mystery, which we encounter. We in various ways give accounts of those encounters.

3:3 Island, Shoreline and Ocean

a personal myth concerning the nature of mystical experience & its relationship to consciousness, & to knowledge creation ā€“ as such it is an attempt to include as much as possible of what I learned during the eleven year journey of the thesis – in a ā€˜one pageā€™ story

The sun always woke her. Every day Jane walked through her garden, inspecting this plant and that, analysing what needed to be done. The quest was never-ending. Sometimes she sat a while on an old tree stump in order to consider the tasks and challenges, trying to work out the feelings and puzzles of what didnā€™t seem quite right, what didnā€™t feel quite right. What she couldnā€™t physically arrange she sometimes tried to paint or write ā€“ she had an imaginary garden as well as a real one. Sometimes she looked at her neighboursā€™ gardens, wondering if that would give her inspiration, but she was always left with the feeling that her most important answers came from elsewhere.

Every day beneath the practical considerations she felt a longing. Having made her review of her garden Jane walked over the fields, across the two streams that eventually made their way down to the sea, and along the cliff, and down to the shoreline. At the shoreline she breathed in her sense of the infinity of the ocean, along with the ozone-heavy, sea-weedy, sea air.
Frequently she imagined the islandā€™s shoreline around the islandā€™s circumference. In her mindā€™s eye she saw each place being shaped in some different way by the ocean – which was sometimes gentle, and was sometimes awesome in its relentless might. Sometimes the feelings that filled her were so powerful that she was overcome. Sometimes the beauty of being in the presence of the ocean was so great that she felt that neither garden nor painting nor poetry would ever fully satisfy the deepest longing.

Often after such reverie she slipped into the sea.

The sea had so much salt that she just floated. And, when the temperature was right, in floating, eyes closed, she lost all sense of where she ended and where the surrounding sea began. There was no separate sea, no separate self – it was just ā€¦.. being. It was always that way, just being. At such times she felt both full and empty, both powerless and at that same time she felt herself to be the very ocean that insistently carved and re-carved the island shoreline.

Mostly at that point she just wanted to stay, to be just part of this place between land and sea, like a driftwood sculpture, ocean-polished, that had been thrown up after a long journey from some river bank, high up some vaguely-remembered river. The shoreline was exquisitely the best of places. But she always took that first step. A first step on the walk back to her garden. And with the walking the experience that was ineffable started to give up insights and possibilities to both refine the garden, and to extend it into some more of the islandā€™s familiar, wilderness, space.

In the evenings she and her friends sat beneath the moon, in whichever was the most interesting of their gardens, at that particular time, and they discussed the issues that concerned them. They all, more or less, had similar such deep experiences as Jane. The ongoing conversation was what united them, along with their respect for how they clothed so differently, in imagination and form, the experiences that were ineffable.
C. from an unpublished doctoral thesis by Roger Prentice, Northumberland ver July 2003

—–0—–

Karen Armstrong’s book A Short History of Myth is HERE NB Read the Customer Reviews which are excellent and ignore the Editorial Reviews which are carping, mean-spirited and self-serving!

Relevant book that looks interesting Restorying Our Lives: Personal Growth Through Autobiographical Reflection HERE

Island map SOURCE

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD. Summaries are HERE

PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY – TWO VIEWS A) BY KEN WILBER AND B) BY DEB PLATT

wilber-ken-b-w.jpg

Even a cursory glance at the ideological and physical conflicts of today will indicate the desperate need for understanding that enables a ‘clearing in the forest’ of beliefs – one that will enable harmony in diversity.

.

On this site I argue that the deepest recognition has to lie in our humanity which we hold in common with all others – I am human, you are human, they are human – we all are human. However since religion exists in many and powerful manifestations the most important of all questions is, “In what ways is there a common light at the centre of of all of the great world religions?” The answer is presented in Perennial Philosophy. Perennial Philosophy is not a particularly good title – something like ‘core mystical reality’ or ‘the great chain of being’ are more accurate, albeit much clumsier titles.

In many ways the appeal to recognize sameness in others, harmony in diversity, is also a call to a kind of federalism. That is to say such a recognition will enable the people of the world to hold an allegiance to the whole as well as to the particular – much as most Americans or Germans hold an allegiance to their national government as well as to their state governments.

.

HERE IS HOW KEN WILBER SUMMARIZES THE SEVEN MAJOR POINTS OF THE PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY, IN HIS BOOK GRACE AND GRIT:

1. Spirit exists.
2. Spirit is found within.
3. Most of us don’t realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of sin,
separation, and duality–that is, we are living in a fallen or illusory state.
4. There is a way out of this fallen state of sin and illusion, there is a Path to our liberation.
5. If we follow this path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience
of Spirit within, a Supreme Liberation, which–
6 marks the end of sin and suffering, and
which
7 issues in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings.

.

THIS IS HOW DEB PLATT PRESENTED HER LATE LAMENTED SITE ON WHICH SHE BROUGHT TOGETHER A VAST AND BEAUTIFUL SELECTION OF QUOTATIONS FROM WORLD RELIGIONS

.

If anyone knows what happened to her site please tell me. Her site was a truly great contribution toward religious understanding and its disappearance a great loss. Equally if you managed to copy her site before it was taken down please let me know (onesummit ATgmail.com replace AT with @).

This is the ‘universal’, mystic heart of all of the great wisdom traditions as Deb Platt presented it;

ā€¢ There’s a reality beyond the material world:
ā€¢ Which is uncreated.
ā€¢ It pervades everything,
ā€¢ but remains beyond the reach of human knowledge and understanding.
ā€¢ You approach that reality by:
ā€¢ Distinguishing ego from true self
ā€¢ Understanding the nature of desire
ā€¢ Becoming unattached
ā€¢ Forgetting about preferences
ā€¢ Not working for personal gain
ā€¢ Letting go of thoughts
ā€¢ Redirecting your attention
ā€¢ Being devoted
ā€¢ Being humble
ā€¢ Invoking that reality
ā€¢ Surrendering
ā€¢ That reality approaches you through:
ā€¢ Grace
ā€¢ The teacher
ā€¢ You’re transformed so that you embody that reality by:
ā€¢ Dying and being reborn

Holistic Education doesnā€™t have allegiance to any one religion or philosophy, but Perennial Philosophy is very important for many and is the position of this site. It is motivated by recognition of the essential oneness of the great wisdom traditions

(SEE also Aldous Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy or Chap 2 of Jack Miller’s Educating for Wisdom & Compassion)

‘Practical theory’ re: Jane’s Short Story, meaning, interpretation, stories, meta-thinking, the teacher – and generating an antidote to fundamentalism!

logo_triskelion.gif

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  Teachers, and other professionals, deal in a) texts (written and other kinds) and b) discourse about their meaning and interpretation with students every day.

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  When we engage with texts we do so in one of three voices – the philosophical-scientific, the creative or the moral-caring. This article comprises the first of a few reflections about hermeneutics in relation to the process of teaching ā€“ and in relation to the SunWALK model and ‘what it is to be fully and positively human’ – the main focus of this site.

 

‘Essentially, hermeneutics involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else’s point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artifacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.’ Wiki

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  1 It makes sense for middle school children, and above, to come to understand that texts represent possible meanings and ‘critiques’ represent readings of texts. It might also be useful from this to understand that readings can both change over time in our lives, but principles might remain constant.

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā 
Developing meta-thinking via periodic re-visits to a useful text

Ā Ā Ā Ā  There are calls for teachers to help children to achieve meta-thinking and one enjoyable way is to re-visit a story in succeeding years with the discourse centred around such questions as;

ā€œHow do you read the story?ā€ and

ā€œHow do you feel what you’ve learned over last year has changed your views and, what you value ā€“ in relation to the story?ā€ and

ā€œIn what respects have you, and your thinking, changed and developed over the last year?ā€and

ā€œHow do you read the story now compared to when you first ‘met it’ ā€“ what’s stayed the same and what has changed?ā€

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  One re-visiting was to Jane’s Short Story in a Roman Catholic middle school. Jane’s Short Story was posted to this site yesterday (8th Aug 2007). I wrote Jane’s Short Story to see how good Year 7 children (11 to 12 year olds) were at de-constructing and critiquing a piece that was deliberately stream-of-consciousness, oblique and cryptic! They surprised me the first time we used the story as a text and they also impressed me with their reflections on how their thinking had developed and the differences they saw on their second encounter.

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  Such work is also an antidote to the shallowness and superficiality that blights much of what children suffer in school. If you treat children as profound thinkers they show that they are profound thinkers ā€“ that’s part of the genius of the process in Lipman’s Philosophy for Children

 

What’s the connection with the SunWALK model?

sunwalk-logo.jpg

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  PFC Philosophy for Children is the exemplary programme for the ‘IT’ voice, the objective mode of engaging with truth. The spirit flows even more powerfully if we combine IT engagement with working with the ‘I’ voice of creative expression. This means that the children can treat the text, including occasionally pieces by the teacher and/or other pupils both as literary text and as philosophical text. Switching back and forth between the two activities and the two treatments of text becomes a very powerful mode of teaching ā€“ including for the third voice, that of the moral and other-centred i.e Caring.

 

What’s the connection with fundamentalism?

Ā Ā Ā Ā  There are many including;

Once you have separated out the different forms of truth-telling, the IT voice of philosophy and science, the ‘I’ voice of Creativity and the ‘WE’ voice of Caring you no longer have to defend texts in inappropriate and very dangerous ways. Treating religious texts as the supreme sources of inspiration for acting with justice, truth, beauty and goodness makes sense. Treating such texts as finite and fixed in their meaning as if they were simply mathematic formulae doesn’t.

Ā Ā Ā Ā  It is we who make the meaning, not God ā€“ which is why we should always be tentative in how we assert our interpretations (including this one!). Sacred texts are gifts of meaning-making possibilities. Of course part of the texts is time-related and part constitutes eternal realities, but understanding what we are doing as we engage in objective, subjective or moral truth-seeking helps minimize confusion.

Ā Ā Ā Ā  Literalism is the denial of God because it is the denial of meaning-making possibilities in relating to sacred texts ā€“ it limits the text to fixed and finite meaning ā€“ and tends to take us away from the focus on the need to act in the world with justice, truth, beauty, goodness – and all of the other so-called names and attributes of God.

 

Ā Ā Ā Ā  It also allows people to start believing that the ‘others’ have broken whatever covenant is deemed to have existed so that no ‘rules’ of war’ need be complied with.

Ā Ā Ā Ā  Its only in early life that we can prevent the kind of indoctrination of hatred for others. Understanding that spirituality, be it theistic or humanist, is simply the process of gaining the will to act morally is vital. Understanding the ‘voices’ with which engage and the texts that we engage with are all either objectively focused or subjectively focused or morally focused is vital in developing the truly mature mind-set and world-view.

 

Writing your thesis, dissertation, essay or paper – Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education – Resource No 1

The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education – a resource when writing your thesis, dissertation, essay or paper

socrates.jpgSocrates

A useful resource if you are writing a thesis, dissertation, essay or paper is The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education. It has been developing slowly ā€“ being produced by busy people!

Its format is pleasing in that the entries are of sufficient length to constitute short essays and are coupled with sufficient references to take you on to greater depths.

There clearly isn’t much time for editing or strengthening translations. Consequently there are a number of entries that present problems such as this first sentence;

The feminist criticism which in the XIX century emerged in the United States and Europe, even defending the equality of rights, considered the differences between men and women from the biological point of view, respecting the existent dichotomy between the public and private space which also meant to accept the feminine domesticity and subordination to the masculine pattern, besides imprinting on those natural differences an idea of womenā€™s inferiority on account of a greater physical and intellectual fragility, in spite of an undeniable superiority from the moral point of view.

Hmmmmm….. Whether the origin of this painful assault lies in first-language woolliness or clumsy translation major dis-service is done to the cause of gender equality as well as to the reputation of the Encyclopaedia!

However still the project is useful and I hope it flourishes ā€“ for several reasons. The main reason is the need to get teacher education back to a core of philosophy of education.

It ought to be able to define its purpose easily as a) giving account of ideas in the Philosophy of Education field and b) giving account of the educational import of the work of philosophers (and others?).

I mention the issue of ‘keeping sharply focused’ the definition of the purpose of the encyclopaedia because of the powerful development of other online resources such as the Wiki Encyclopaedia and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

SEE also Learning Motivation for Success

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD.

Summaries are HERE

Knowledge, Knowing and the Unknowable: Head, Heart and the Mystery of Our-selves

 

Ver 2. as at 4th Aug 2007

PREFACE

This was written as a summary of some of the discussions held during a recent course run with 9 wonderful young women and men. So first and foremost this is for Poppy, Ellie, Jono, Saha, Natalie, Paddy, Jody, Kenny – and Davey.

my-neighbours-house.jpg

This is what I feel/think I’ve learned so far;

WHAT’S WRONG?

Because of its lopsidedness and excessive specialization modern science, and thought generally, has got us into a mess. The mess is characterized by our consciousness and life being fragmented, mechanical and excessively materialistic. We need to create a new ‘post post-modernism’ that combines the positives from modernism, post-modernism and pre-modernism.

First of all we have to chose a starting point – because all of life is a circling matrix of connectedness.

THINKING AND FEELING AND BEING – AND BEING ‘MORE THEN’

I am – therefore I think. (Variation on Descartes’ starting point).

We are/You are – thereby I am. (Variation on a Swahili saying).

I am supported in my existence by all of the relationships in which I am embedded – including my ‘significant others’, and those I chose to lead me, and those with whom I chose to identify – so as to become like them or at least possess some of their qualities.

Our being is much more than our thinking, reason and logic ā€“ we are 51%, or more, feelings.

Unless our capacities for feeling are attenuated, blunted or simply under-developed.

We are known and knowable – but also exist at levels that are beyond the knowable.

That is we are, in the depths of our being, a mystery to our selves – and to each other.

Thinking is one way to engage with other/s, or the self ā€“ and with reality.

Thinking is what we do as part of being ā€“ sometimes it is more, and sometimes less, than the feeling/s we are also generating/experiencing. One or the other is in dominance at any one time.

Thinking and feeling are simply different forms of the single human spirit that flows through each of us ā€“ and apparently around that ‘space’ we call our inner world or interiority.

What would be a sensible name for the single flow of spirit that switches back and forth between ‘heart’ and ‘mind’? I suggest ‘heart-mind’. ‘Heart-mind’ actually has a long history in Chinese thought.

‘Heart-mind’ is preferable to ‘heart’ and ‘mind’ as some sort of separated ‘organs’.

Heart-mind is interiority ā€“ conscious thoughts and feelings, + re-callable memories + that which normally remains in the sub-conscious, such as painful memories.

HEART-MIND (THE ONENESS OF THINKING AND FEELING) AS THE 3 ‘I’, ‘WE’ AND ‘IT’ VOICES OR MODES OF ENGAGING WITH REALITY – AND OF CIOMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER

Thought and feeling however don’t account for the fact that we communicate with each other, at any one time, in one of three voices; ‘I’. ‘WE’ and ‘IT’ .

Sometimes our heart-mind/spirit switches into the I mode of artistic-subjective expression and engagement with reality.

Sometimes it switches into the WE mode of caring and other-focused action.

Sometimes it switches into the IT mode of scientific-objective investigation and engagement with reality.

We switch back and forth with great rapidity ā€“ unless we are in a meditative state or dreamless sleep. The other 2 voices are always ‘running in the background’.

THE ‘I’, ‘WE’ and ‘IT’ VOICES CORRESPOND TO CREATIVITY, CARING and CRITICALITY

I suggest that the term ‘thinking’ is better thought of as three separate ways in which we engage with reality, with each other – and our selves.

Thinking in the sense of Criticality (inc. philosophy, science maths, Eng. Lit, etc.) is one way for the human spirit to engage with reality. The other two are Caring and Creativity.

Caring focuses on moral truth as caring – action for the sake of others.

Creativity is concerned with subjective truth as a way to engage with reality ā€“ its voice says ā€œThis is how it has been for me, this is how it looks for me ā€“ standing in my ‘skin’.

Criticality focuses on objective truth – in which reasoning and logic are especially important.

Thought and feeling/s are two sides of a single coin ā€“ each transforms into the other moment by moment in the dynamics of the heart-mind. This is evident in simple introspection.

Heart-mind, is however socialized into the 3 I, WE and IT voices.

All 3 have cognitive and affective charges at any one time.

The I WE and IT voices are internalizations/socializations of parental voices, school and community voices.

The cultural ‘repositories’ that correspond to the I,WE and IT voices we call the Arts, Humanities & Sciences.

The moral voice is an internalization of early caring and experience ā€“ with conscience as the internalization of the parental voice.

There may be sensible connections to be made between left and right brain hemispheres and the UIT and I voices.

It seems sensible to connect the I voice and the mystical since both involve unitive experiences.

In dealing with the Critical IT way of engaging with reality we deal in concepts ā€“ but we might agree with Heschel who says ā€œConcepts are delicious snacks with which we try to alleviate our amazement.ā€

CONCEPTS AS ‘DELICIOUS SNACKS’ – AND ‘AMAZEMENT’ AS THE UNITIVE STATE OF THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

Amazement is the state of union, the unitive state which in its elevated forms is the mystical.

The mystical needs to be recognized as a normal, every-day even, part of being human. It needs de-mystifying and de-rarefying. It is not the sole prerogative of the exceptional such as Joan of Arc or of those who unhelpfully hear voices.

The basic experience is embedded in every day language as when we say, ā€œIt took me out of my-self.ā€

In normal, conceptual, busy-busy life we have a strong sense of ego/self/me-me. But sometimes I forget my self – through a unitive experience.

As the gospel song says;

I’m gonna lay down my heavy load

Down by the riverside

Down by the riverside

I’m gonna lay down my heavy load

Down by the riverside

Gonna study war no more.

One reading of the ‘heavy load’ is the small self, the ego, the ego boundary that keeps us in the relative hell of separation and pain and suffering.

Contemplation or perhaps deeper meditation is what takes us to the unitive state.

But I don’t think permanent self-loss is the goal because the dynamic lies in going back and forth between the unitive and the duality that is most of everyday life.

In fact I believe that our knowing comes as a consequence of the dynamic that arises from going back and forth between the unitive and duality

LOGIC IS WHAT WE NEED WHEN WE RETURN FROM THE STATE OF AMAZEMENT/MYSTICAL UNION

Logic is a good servant but insufficient as an overall master explanation of what we are, or what amounts to truth.

For example logic can be used impeccably to support the view that God exists, and equally for the view that there is no God.

Logical constructions, like journeys, always start somewhere.

That ‘somewhere’ in our intellectual-spiritual journeys, and dialogue with each other, is always a set of assumptions and viewpoints.

DEVELOPING A NEW PARADIGM – AND REALIZING THAT THE INADEQUACIES OF THE OLD PARADIGM LIE IN ITS SET OF ASSUMPTIONS (BECAUSE THEY LARGELY LIE UNTESTED)

The assumptions, like a geographical position, always imply a world-view.

The assumptions are largely untested like the 9/10ths of the ice-berg that is below the surface.

The world-view can include a range of other assumptions including what it is to be human, what constitutes reality, what is good or bad etc.

The new paradigm that is struggling to be born is characterised by wholeness, flow and realizations of the spiritual nature of being human – the opposites of fragmentation, the mechanistic and the excessively materialistic. Above all it centres on realizing to a much deeper and higher forms answers to the most important of all questions; ā€œWhat is it to be (fully and positively) human?ā€

REALIZING UNITY – PERSONALLY OR COLLECTIVELY – IS HELP BY THE GIFT OF WISE VOICES

Individually our happiness depends on our integration ā€“ of heart and head, of identity and purpose, of personal development and service to others. One key secret is realizing that mind and body and spirit are all one and the same ā€“ the singleness of the life-force, chi, the human spirit.

Collectively we also need deeper realization of unity ā€“ that unity is based on the existential reality of being human. Like millions of others I learned this from Shakespeare. Scots would add Robbie Burns.

Unity can not in the social political sphere be achieved through philosophy or theology, both of which depend on reason and logic. Why? Well as the ancient saying goes, ‘The longest journey in the world is from the human head to the human heart, but the shortest journey in the world is from the human heart to the human head.’

Unity can only be achieved via a commitment to the existential reality of being human. We are all human. We strive for a better life. We have loved ones and we all suffer grief and loss……………….

Our theology and philosophy are only games (of reason and logic) that we play ā€“ on the ‘foundation’ of incomplete certainty, not-knowing and mystery – and they must take second place to realizing our existential human oneness – and truth and beauty and goodness.- and above all justice as our over-riding interior ‘conditioner’ as well as the chief conditioner in the social and political realms.

Deep unity is realized through our existential sameness. The ‘healthy doubt’ is vital in matters of theology and philosophy. Doubting, just a modicum not a flood, is healthy when it functions as a cousin of tentativeness and humility. Absolute certainty is the condition of the fundamentalist ā€“ and the fascist and terrorist. Unity requires something other than closed minds and cold hearts. The co-existence of humility ā€“ but without a collapse into the hell of relativity, political correctness and effete values now displayed in so many Western countries. But our unity lies in the state of not-knowing, not in hard and water-tight (heart-tight?) convictions;

“We are united by our doubts and divided by our convictions.” Sir Peter Ustinov

Excesses of certitude cut us off from truth and can lead to horrors of cruelty ā€“ the Nazis were certain that Jews, and Gypsies were sub-human.

“Certitude divides and diversity unifiesā€¦..We have to elevate religion above politicsā€¦..”

H.R.H. Prince El-Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan BBC Newsnight 9th Feb 2006

I am because we are. I am ultimately in a state of not knowing. I see through a glass not darkly, but with imperfect vision ā€“ this being an inevitable consequence of being finite.

Speaking personally I can’t live fully up to the truth, beauty, goodness, justice and mystery that I’ve learned (about) so far. This means that I, like us all, need forgiveness; hearts embrace, minds take a stroll together before parting. I/we need for-give-ness as part of the love through which to gain the will to walk on!

Go well.

Roger

Dr Roger Prentice

Certainty, senses, reason, logic, tradition, heart-knowing, intuition, revelation & insight in knowing

Some have concluded that we really know nothing (fully?).
senses.jpgSource
Its certainly difficult to even know ourselves and also very difficult to know others, even our loved ones.

It might then be wrong, or inadvisable, to believe that we know (anything) with absolute certainty. What is advisable is that we can obtain high degrees of certainty when we rely on combining more than one way of coming to know.

These ways of knowing include;
i) our senses and the experience we have through them
ii) reason and its servant logic
iii) tradition – all accumulated experience, laws etc
iv) heart-knowing including in-spiration, and meditation that provide in-tuition revelation & in-sight
v) dialogue and consultation with others.

However we can be misled by any one or more of these but combining the benefits of all of these will give us the highest possible degree of certainity when they are in accord.

To be developed.

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD. Summaries are HERE

Who are you? Who am I? What is human being?

heschel-with-king-selma.jpg

Saw this today – with some quick ideas for a lesson;

“You are the average of the five people
you spend the most time with.”
– Jim Rohn

Are you? Am I?

Do we have an essence? Or are we each an admixture of the roles we play and the relationships in which we are embedded?

Or both?

The best answers I ever found were in Who is Man? by Abraham Joshua Heschel.

The Photo is of Heschel with MLK at Selma – they consider each other to be a ‘prophet’

Is my essence the sum of that with which I identify?

Or is there an essence that is independent of the accidents of personal history ?

ā€”ā€“0ā€”ā€“

All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD. Summaries are HERE