I re-visited an earlier post…..
INTUITION IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE HAVE OF KNOWING
Intuition is in-tuition i.e. the tuition we do for ourselves within our selves, within our consciousness, or heart-mind as I prefer. Its in-tuition as opposed to out-tuition – tuition that others do for us!
When we’ve done, and had, a bit of in-tuition we experience one or more insights, or in-sights. That is, we see, one way or another, in to the reality of things – including our self as a thing!
This raises the question of who is talking to whom, and who is tutoring whom, and where the knowledge comes from – and if the tutor and the taught are two parts of the same person how come what was known by one part wasn’t known by the other part!
Of course if, starting with everyday experience, we accept this ‘in-tuiting’ to be the case then intuition has either a scientific explanation, a theological one – or both, if like me you hold that the two are not incompatible!
The scientific one probably sketches something like this. We process everything that we experience and it provides insights which only come in to consciousness when need demands. There is also the idea that wisdom is in-built in humans – but knocked out or re-pressed by a lousy education system. It is in-built in a way similar to Chomsky’s theory of language being in-built
<i>Chomsky’s theory holds that humans are born with a special biological brain mechanism, called a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This theory supposes that the ability to learn language is inborn, that nature is more important than nurture and that experience using language is only necessary in order to activate the LAD.</i> (See below for a longer quote and source reference)
Don’t miss the main point – that probably the most important element in the quality of children’s lives is the quality of the talk interactions which adults provide – talk to your babies in as many ways as you can!
WHAT ABOUT A THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION?
Well it would be something like this – when we ‘converse’ with our Higher Self we are in fact plugging in to the Holy Spirit – not directly as did the great ‘Manifestations’ of God – Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Baha’u’llah etc. – but enough to receive insight and wisdom over and above our ‘daily limitations’.
But, even if I can only vaguely see it at present, I’m quite happy to accept that there is some resolution between the scientific idea of the mind-brain chugging away in the basement of our sub-conscious and the idea that when we go deep enough in to a person or ourselves we find God – because all Creation is an emanation of God, just as all light and warmth in this world is an emanation of the physical sun.
This theological world-view yokes together the two ideas that God is both absolutely immanent AND absolutely transcendent.
Which brings me to the nearest I have ever come across to a satisfactory definition of God;
“God is a circle whose centre is everywhere, whose circumference is nowhere.”
Anonymous, ‘The Book of the Twenty-four Philosophers‘ (12thC)
Of course it isn’t really a definition – it’s more like a Zen Master’s ‘pointing’ – but what a pointing!
Of course I like it because it expresses my theological perspective and world-view – that of immanence plus transcendence i.e. panENtheism.
Who knows…………
Of course unless we ‘lie through assertion’ or ‘dupe through self-deception’ we don’t really, unequivocally, know. The best we can have is reasonably high degrees of certainty – and then preferably by combining several ways of knowing including sense observation, reason, intuition and the precedent of community precedents. We in truth live with mystery. As it says in the Koran ‘Man is my mystery and I am his‘.
Peter Ustinov gave us another wonderful insight;
“We are united by our doubts and divided by our convictions.”
Recognition of ignorance is strength not weakness as Saint Augustine pointed out;
“I am in a sorry state, for I do not know what I do not know!”
Because we have unique histories we have unique world-views. In fact it is the fact that at our centre we need faith to bridge the gap that exists between knowing and not knowing between finite humanity and that other defining characteristic of God – infinity.
As I suggested elsewhere excesses of certitude cut us off from truth and can lead to horrors of cruelty – the Nazis were certain that Jews, and Gypsies were sub-human.
“Certitude divides and diversity unifies…..We have to elevate religion above politics…..”
H.R.H. Prince El-Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan BBC Newsnight 9th Feb 2006
All ‘desire to be united’ is as the drop that longs to come one with the ocean – the rub, and the joy, is that the duality through which we learn is the dynamic that exists between oneness on the one hand, via contemplative letting go of the ego, and l-one-ly separation on the other.
Oh yes and the longing is where love songs come from as well!
<i>The first time ever I saw your face
I thought the sun rose in your eyes
And the moon and stars were the gifts you gave
To the dark and the empty skies, my love,
To the dark and the empty skies.………….</i>
—–0—–
THE QUOTE FROM THE TALK TO YOU BABY SECTION OF THE NATIONAL LITERACY TRUST’S WEBSITE
<i>What are the main theories that influence the way practitioners in early childhood education and care settings think about language development?
Chomsky: Language Acquisition Device
Although other theories were proposed earlier, it may be best to begin with Chomsky’s theory that humans are born with a special biological brain mechanism, called a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This theory supposes that the ability to learn language is inborn, that nature is more important than nurture and that experience using language is only necessary in order to activate the LAD. Chomsky’s background is in linguistics, and psycholinguists continue to contribute much to our understanding of languages and how children acquire them. His theory is described as Nativist. The main contribution of his work has been to show that children’s language development is much more complex than the Behaviourists (‘Show the way’, Nursery World, 18 March 2004), who believed that children learn language merely by being rewarded for imitating.
One problem with Chomsky’s theory is that it does not take enough account of the influence that thought (cognition) and language have on each other’s development.
Piaget: cognitive constructivism
Piaget’s central interest was children’s cognitive development (‘Building up’, Nursery World, 20 May 2004). However, he theorised that language was simply one of children’s ways of representing their familiar worlds, a reflection of thought, and that language did not contribute to the development of thinking. Cognitive development, he argued, preceded that of language.
Vygotsky: social constructivism and language
Unlike Chomsky and Piaget, Vygotsky’s central concern was the relationship between the development of thought and that of language. He was interested in the ways in which different languages might impact on how a person thinks. He suggested that what Piaget saw as young children’s egocentric speech was in fact private speech, the child’s way of using words to think about something, a step on the road from social speech to thinking in words. So Vygotsky’s theory views language first as social communication, gradually promoting both language itself and cognitiion. Theorists who also followed this tradition and whose ideas can contribute to our understanding include his contemporary Bakhtin, and Bruner.
Recent theorising: intentionality
Some critics of earlier theories suggest that children, their behaviours and their attempts to make sense are often lost when the causes of language development are thought to be ‘outside’ the child or else mechanistically ‘in the child’s brain.’
These contemporary researchers and theorists recognise that children have ‘agency’ – that they are active learners co-constructing their worlds. Their language development is part of their holistic development, emerging from cognitive , emotional and social interactions. The social and cultural environment, the people in it and their interactions, and how children come to represent all these in their minds, are absolutely fundamental to language development. It is a child’s agenda, and the interactions generated by the child, that promote language learning.
However, this does not mean the adult’s role, actions and speech are considered of less importance. But adults need to be able to ‘mind read’ and adjust their side of the co-construction to relate to an individual child’s understanding and interpretation.
Intentionality theories have existed since Aristotle, and this model of language development draws on Piaget, acknowledging the importance of cognitive development. However, ‘intentionality’ emphasises holistic development, so including emotions and other aspects of growth and learning.
The intentionality model makes sense when we think about the way in which most children’s language accelerates between 18 months and four years of age, when increases in cognitive capabilities give children a better understanding of both verbal and non-verbal categories. They will also use ‘over-extended categories’ less (such as babies and toddlers labelling all men ‘daddy’ or all animals ‘dogs’).
Messages for practice
Theories about language development help us see that enjoying ‘proto-conversations’ with babies (treating them as people who can understand, share and have intentions in sensitive inter-changes), and truly listening to young children, is the best way to promote their language development.</i>
From “Talk it through”, written by Tricia David for Nursery World, 16 September 2004 – on the National Literacy Trust’s site http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/talktoyourbaby/theories.html
—–0—–
SEE also Learning Motivation for Success
All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD.
Summaries are HERE
Soul Needs - One Garden 