Dear Stan, Dear orglearners:
Thank you very much for your post, Stan; It was a very useful reading;
off thread yes, but a very good beginning for a new thread. [ In fact, I
took the liberty of reproducing it to a list subscribed by the majority of
my students (and many of my ex-students), where I hope it will be as
thought provoking as it was to me...]. Some comments follow:
Replying to a At, you wrote:
>My question however, is actually off topic from what you were discussing
>in this post and has to do with your statement, "Ignorance is an antonym
>for learning."
>(...)
> "Is ignorance really the opposite of learning?"
I think that you have showed that "No, it is not!". But, to your question:
>Isn't ignorance actually a prerequisite for learning?
I would answer: "No, it's not (or, at least it is not enough)!".
And again when you ask
> Is it not BECAUSE of
>my ignorance that I have opportunity to learn?
I would answer "no", again. It is not BECAUSE of your ignorance, but
because you are aware of your ignorance. With your side thought, you came
to the real point, I think:
> [side thought-- back to
>your post: could ignoring my ignorance be the antonym for learning?]
Indeed, I think that you and At were talking about two different levels of
"ignorance". To use the terms of a previous thread, I would call them
"Unconscious ignorance" ( I don't know that I don't know") and "Conscious
ignorance" ( "I don't know, but I know that I don't know"). [ And, of
course, that is the reason why the wisest man on earth was the one that
"knew that he knew nothing"...].
This Socratic dichotomy is very interesting, but I am afraid that it is
not enough, or it is even wrong. From this dichotomy we would make the
difference between two levels of ignorance:
- level 1 - "I am ignorant ( or incompetent) about something, and I am
conscious/aware of my ignorance";
- level 0 - "I am ignorant about something, and I am NOT conscious about
that".
Of course, we would agree that no one will ever state "I am at level 0
ignorance: I don't know and I don't know that I don't know". We would
probably recognise that this statement is logically impossible. But why is
that?
The reason, I think, is that LEVEL 0 IGNORANCE DOESN'T EXIST! There are
only two possible states: "Either I don't know, and I know that I don't
know" ( level 1 ignorance), or "I don't know, and I "know" something
different, that I think is true (but it is not)" ( level -1 ignorance).
("-" from minus)
The reason why "learning" is so difficult for a great number of people and
organisations is because "learning" is not "coming from level 0 to level 1
ignorance", and then try to learn; but "coming from level -1 to level 1".
Except in the cases where we previously knew that we don't know, learning
ALWAYS imply an "insight", an enlightenment", a "paradigm shift, a
"metanoia", or a previous "unlearning process".
Ignorance is not "not knowing"; ignorance is "knowing wrongly"; and that
is the reason why there is always a "resistance to learn"; I mean, a
resistance to "unlearn" what one previously "knew" (but is wrong).
There are lot of questions, when you try to promote personal or
organisational learning, that are related with this; but to keep in line
with Stan's post, I will only refer to the responsibilities of those
between us that "teach" in schools, namely at higher Education.
Some time ago we have been discussing "LOs and Higher Ed"; and the main
subjects were : "can we promote LOs in Universities?" and "are
Universities a model for LOs?". But Stan points, I think, to a very
different and most important point:
>I was raised in a school system that required the "right" answer. If you
>had the "right" answer you were recognised and honored; if you gave the
>"wrong" answer or "didn't know" you were embarrassed and looked stupid.
>The consequence for me was to equate ignorance with stupidity. I learned
>through the process to hide ignorance because I didn't want to look
>stupid. I learned that I could hide my ignorance in "right" answers
>("will this be on the test?").
I have been raised in a similar kind of school, and the same is true, I
think, for the majority of us. But from the "picture" above, one has to
conclude that our "school system" ( including Higher Ed) doesn't promote
"learning"; it promotes "memorising the right stuff", "hiding ignorance";
"hiding from ourselves our ignorance", showing ( and afterwards feeling)
that "we know what we don't know". It seems that our school systems is
doing its best to raise people that will be unable to learn, unable to be
part of a LO. And that what afterwards we do, as consultants to
organisations, is to try to correct the problems the school system (
sometimes, ourselves) has created in first place.
Somehow, some of us, have been able to escape from the "learning
disabilities" that the school system tried to create on us; and we hope
that somehow, some of our students will be able to do the same...
Stan concludes remind us of a superb story:
>One day, as I was reading a short story to my young children called "The
>Emperor's New Clothes"
(...)
> Toward the end of the parade
>route a startled young child could be heard crying out, "Mother, look, the
>emperor is naked!!"
Have you noticed that it as a "young child" that has been able to see the
truth? I suspect that she had not entered the school system YET!
Regards
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>