Hey, Scott! No flames intended. Actually, I prefaced my earlier response
with the acknowledgment that you are an honorable, well-intentioned person
who certainly didn't intend the consequences that my response was
concerned with.
Scott Ott wrote:
--snip--
> While acknowledging historic abuses of "education", I'm not talking
>about brainwashing, coercion or manipulation. I'm not talking about
>socio-psychological manipulation or water torture designed to break down
>a person's resistance to a particular dogma
and to insert a preferred "truth".
> I'm simply talking about teaching basic concepts, and the realization
>that people bring to the teaching/learning encounter a set of ideas ---
>sometimes far removed from empirical evidence.
Yes, Scott, I understand. But sometimes (often?) empirical evidence in
societies is a matter of how cultures and people look at things.
> However, I do think your post raises some interesting questions by
>suggesting that nothing at all can really be known. As you wrote...
>
> > I also don't know what a true idea is. I have a general idea
> >that all of my ideas can be true if I work to make them so. I also
> >suspect that the conceptions that you identify as misconceptions might be
> >a true idea. imagine that!
>
> If truth is in the mind of the beholder, abandon all teaching and
>learning. There is no use for it, because any and every notion (even
>mutually exclusive notions) are true, or could be true if we assume a
>different reality. In fact, if nothing can be kn
own as true --- and by definition, no idea can be "more true" than another
idea --- we have ourselves in quite a mess, don't we. In fact, I would
suggest that in the land of "what I say is true", we are all gods. And to
paraphrase the western movie axiom:
"This town ain't big enough for the 4.5 billion of us."
Actually, truth is in the mind of the beholder. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't learn, or teach--because then we aren't open to other people's
truths.
A personal anecdote might help here---my father was convinced (in 1968)
that Martin Luther King was the pawn of communist conspirators and that
King was one of the most dangerous men in the US. He based this
information on his experience in law enforcement, which included bulletins
from the FBI that sounded the alarms over civil rights advocates and
agitators.
He was mortified that I thought Martin Luther King was one of the most
American of leaders in the country at that time, because of how he
espoused the ideals and principles that I thought were integral to the
American constitution, and the philosophies up on which the USA were
founded. I thought that J. Edgar Hoover might be the most dangerous man
in the US at that time. Of course, I was very young and idealistic, and
had probably been influenced by some commie-sympathizing teachers!
Today, my father accepts that King's agenda was appropriate--and that
Hoover's agenda seems (in retrospect) to have been unAmerican. Wow.
So--what was the truth. Was it different in 1968 that it is in 1998?
In 1968, I would have been (was) targeted (by the mainstream culture) for
unlearning. In 1998, my father's opinions (from 1968) are the target for
unlearning. Truth changed. (for some people).
> Even our own founding fathers (USA) held some truths to be self-evident.
> And Doc, if there is no truth, why waste your time writing to the LO ?
Our (USA) founding fathers never quite agreed on these self-evident
truths--but, Jefferson (with Franklin's help and backing from some other
influential people) managed to keep that one in. As you probably recall,
the most important articles in the US Constitution very nearly never made
it in. I'm referring to the first 10 articles that guarantee almost all
of our individual liberties within the law. Many of our founding fathers
found these 10 articles to border on sedition--and to be far too dangerous
to be extended to society's riff raff (probably most of my ancestors fell
into this category).
Scott--if you approached a person in the street and asked her--"what
things do you believe that we must help you unlearn so that you can learn
the things that are true, based on empirical evidence"--how would you
expect them to respond?
Let's say that we waited to ask this question of people who entered our
classrooms. What would they say?
My point is simple--whatever a person believes is the truth to them at
that time. It may be that the two of us (like you and I) believe
antithetical ideas (we have different truths). If we talk about them, we
may not change our basic beliefs (because each of us is right--at least in
our own minds), but we have gained some insight into the other person's
truth. Perhaps, if we are respectful enough in our listening (and our
advocating) by sharing meaningful conversations, we can even arrive at
some sense of shared meaning. I always suspect this is so, because our
truths are not usually so far apart as they first seem.
We must walk for awhile in the other person's shoes to gain their
perspective--to understand what they believe, and why. This is the
honorable way to help each other unlearn and learn.
Thanks, Scott for your response. I hope I've made myself clearer. It's
the little god in me who insists on articulating his truths, you know.
Indeed, the reason I write to the LO list is to find what other's truths
are (like yours!).
Perhaps you'd share with me some of your ideas about unlearning within the
context that you would intend to use it.
walk in peace,
Doc
--"The most invisible creators I know of are those artists whose medium is life itself. The ones who express the inexpressible - without brush, hammer, clay or guitar. They neither paint nor sculpt - their medium is being. Whatever their presence touches has increased life. They see and don't have to draw. They are the artists of being alive." - J. Stone
Thresholds--developing critical skills for living organizations Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Olympia, WA ICQ# 10849650 Please visit our new website, still at <http://www.thresholds.com/> <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>