I was over on Misled Youth a while ago, and replied to a post on the self-portrait thread from Kisston. Kisston talked a little about how she (I think) got a call from her ex after ranting about him on the forum. I replied with a story about how I found, as if by magic, a source that had been eluding me in my research. My friend, Brandon, a film-maker with whom I am currently working on a project (more about that much later), went to a haunted house this Halloween and saw/heard some things he can't explain. What I guess I'm trying to get to here is that despite the advances of science, we are still sort of looked between the world we know and the world(s) we suspect. I'm not talking about religion here. I'm pretty convinced that much of what passes for religion is bullshit. Others are free to dispute that point. That's between them and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
In any case, I think the brain is a much more potent instrument than most people think. I encounter another aspect of this when training kung fu. When you incorporate engagement of the mind and of the body new possibilities open themselves to you. What's really interesting is when you are able to "see" things but not describe them. In this case, I'm talking about training in
Chi Sao. What your hands "see" is difficult to describe, constantly changing and mutating. Intuition is critical. Openness to sensation is too. I wonder to what extent we help people to learn these things with the emphasis on things like "standards"? Not all knowledge is that easy to reduce. Academic knowledge is inseparable from personal knowledge is inseperable from the world and all its manifestations. As one of my kung fu brothers once said, in an interview I conducted during my dissertation research:
The seed of Ving Tsun, the various things that Ving Tsun trains in you, in your person, your personality, who you are and how you think, and your evolution as a human being. All these things are being trained, all evolving, not separate from your technical abilities in kung fu, but it's kind of a different issue, and it's not dependent on your technical abilities. You'd think the technical abilities probably would evolve at a similar pace with the other aspects of your person that is evolving through Ving Tsun. It's natural it would just make sense that way. So, I really feel the seed having been growing in me all this time. I really feel that. And you know, Ving Tsun is a part of that, even when I was away and not an active Ving Tsun student. Because that saying, you know, your kung fu is your whole life and Ving Tsun is your life, and so it's all… I can think in terms of my personal evolution, and Ving Tsun is doing the same thing. And I've certainly evolved a lot over that time where I was gone [1994-1997]. And the ideas that are essential to Ving Tsun have been a part of that evolution. They have been central in many cases to my evolution. And I don't think necessarily that I got all those ideas from Ving Tsun, but Ving Tsun is connected to some… fund of some really true principles, you know? And somehow it's all intertwined. Ving Tsun is connected to those things and it's helped bring out the things in me that are the direction I want to go in. It's a part of it definitely. It couldn't be separated.
I don't claim to understand why what he's saying is true, but I think it is. Maybe there's a good way to foster knowledge that allows for knowledge of self and development of intution. If so, I think it must contain a bodily, and even a magical, aspect. My favorite philosopher said this same thing somewhat differently, but I think well:
Our approach to any deep psychological problem is always a positive one. That is, we want to get at it, we want to control or resolve the problem, so we analyze it, or we pursue a particular system in order to understand it. But you can't understand something which you don't know by means of what you already know; you can't dictate what it should or should not be. You must approach it with empty hands; and to have empty hands, or an empty mind, is one of the most difficult things to do. Our minds are so full of the things that we have known; we are burdened with our memories, and every thought is a response to those memories. With positive thought we approach that which is not positive, the hidden, the unconscious. (J. Krishnamurti, "Reflections on the Self," 1997, p. 87)
This goes back to what I wrote yesterday with regard to the unconscious, and gives another way of understanding it. Indeed, is the goddess alive, and magick afoot, as our pagan friends suggest? Not sure about that, but the world is a mighty strange place nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wonder to what extent we help people to learn these things with the emphasis on things like "standards"? Not all knowledge is that easy to reduce. Academic knowledge is inseparable from personal knowledge is inseperable from the world and all its manifestations.
I think I understand what you're getting at. In Jungian terms, standards, as they exist, don't relate well to individuation. And not just standards -- the way school is usually structured, and the way it was effectively set up in modern times, has virtually no place for knowledge and development of self, of individuation, or of individualization even in terms of meeting standard educational standards. And the way parents tend to treat their kids, i.e., devaluation, treating them as exceptionally inferior and of deserving little if any right to self-determination, etc. (Kids supposedly have some influence on their parents' purchasing decisions, though!)
This, along with my belief in the value of well-constructed, flexible standards (especially to the students themselves or those who are working with them), is why I question your apparent emphasis on standards as the culprit in the very real educational failures your identify.
Standards can even be constructed that take self-development, self-knowledge, self-determination, personal growth, etc. into account. The tough part is evaluation and assessment of progress. Among other things, even if specific "milestones" can be identified and agreed upon in a given person, there is likely to be controversy or at least disagreement over what directions are right vs. wrong. Due to the nature of actually developing one's consciousness, those engaged in this process will tend to question how things are, and even to challenge them in the social realm. If nothing else, this brings up practical difficulties for teachers, given how classes are set up, by disrupting the tradition of treating every student as (and forcing them to be) essentially the same.
If you conceive of standards as the publicized high-stakes universal criteria everyone must meet, I think you're missing out on the value standards (i.e., criteria of points of accomplishment) can have for learners and teachers.
For example, consider this software product: http://www.nwea.org/tools/descartes/ It works based on testing and standards, but ones developed by this organization which seems to be focused on considering learners as individuals. For a summary of some of what I like about that software (based on what I've read), see http://www.nwea.org/tools/descartes/faq.asp?faqID=10
This organization recently did a report on the impact of NCLB implementation, which you might find interesting. Even though they tend to have a positive view of it, they appear genuinely interested in identifying both how it is and isn't helping. Summary of the report is at http://www.nwea.org/assets/research/national/NCLBImpact_2005_Brief.pdf
Notably, they found that ethnic group correlates with differences in score increase ("growth"), which illustrates the one of the most problematic aspects of NCLB, not to mention schools' failure to provide much of any individualization to students.
Also, they write "The figure also shows a common trend for all students to grow less if they start with higher scores in the fall." This is the sort of thing that especially bothers me about a focus on students meeting "proficiency" as the sole indicator of school performance. Those students ahead of the class, or with higher ability, aren't going to have much in the way of score increases, because they already know a lot, and the instruction is apparently only aimed at establishing proficiency. Plus, the tests are almost definitely highly limited in the level and range of material they evaluate. Furthermore, as you've noted, lower-performing students are then considered a liability, because the legislation doesn't consider their individual capacities and characteristics. Both higher and lower performing students are going to be "left behind" by a lack of individualization in the curriculum, instruction, and evaluation.
Plus, as I think I've said before, it's crazy to reward or punish schools as a whole, when it's the individual teachers and students who are doing the instruction and learning. Ultimately, better solutions are needed, and attacking NCLB alone will never make any difference, without better methods developed and implemented that lead to actual improvement. This requires an increasing level of individual attention and substantial student choice in their learning and points of evaluation.
Maybe there's a good way to foster knowledge that allows for knowledge of self and development of intution.
A starting point in fostering such development is simply to allow and encourage it, rather than stamping it out because its process tends to cause problems for parents, teachers, etc. Self-aware and individuating individuals tend to want and need more space than especially younger people are usually allowed.
On top of that, having some ideas and examples to start with is of enormous help. Without anything to work with, it's hard to get far. This is a major complaint I have with my development, on top of the structural constraints imposed by school, parents, etc. that impede or even completely halt progress. In your case, Kung Fu, and its associated philosophy, is an example of what I'm saying here -- having some ideas and experience to work with and from.
Post a Comment