At,
Thank you for your reply to my concern over the need for a line between
becoming and being. You replied that there are currently many such
distinctions in science, such as the ones between species. I agree, and
did say in my original message that I do see the value in some
distinctions where, for example, a gain in knowledge leads to a cure for a
disease, or between someone qualified to perform brain surgery and someone
who is not. These distinctions also tend to be more objective, as in:
"This fish has a fin here, this one does not, therefore it falls into
class Y not Z."
My initial concern still exists, though, in regard to various areas of
learning. To return to the original example of a farmer, I believe that
the criteria used to declare someone as having achieved the level of being
are human constructs, and risk being discriminatory and divisive.
Learning is a continuum, and I could certainly see value in having
numerous levels of "being" along that continuum.
In practical terms, I think that most of us tend to relax once we have
achieved "being," and the process of learning slows or stops. My wife and
partner has made the point that once we label something, we tend to stop
learning about the person or thing we have just labelled. For example,
attaching the label of farmer, or manager, or professor, to someone
carries, for most of us, some preconceived expectations. It is very easy
to then deal with that person by our expectations of them rather than as
an individual. It seems to me that we risk making the world too black and
white by having only one cutoff point between being and becoming.
Your thoughts?
Brian
briangordon@livetolearn.com
Live to Learn
www.livetolearn.com
--"Brian Gordon" <briangordon@livetolearn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>