Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thoughts about Qualley from chapters 2 and 3
My concern with the body of work presented thus far by Qualley is that there seems to be an assumption that in order for any real growth to take place or for “truth” to be realized, we must accept information / input of some kind from another source. There seems to be little room for the possibility that one can have a solid understanding of a concept, person, culture or theory independent of at least some secondary source of information. Having said that, I am one who gladly accepts all information and perspectives for consideration when making a decision or trying to understand something such as a position taken by another. However, is it so difficult to believe that someone can alone achieve understanding of a particular something without making a conversion of some sort or accepting further input? Maybe I simply like to work independently too much for my own good. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think we"re ever truly "alone" in the learning process, even when we think we are. To be thinking reflexively, we should be in constant dialogue with the other-self, text, observation of others. We learn from our experiences, which is a combination of external and internal 'others.'
ReplyDeleteBrett,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for wanting to grapple with philosophical issues in your post. I loved how you respectfully challenged Qualley's presentation of the need for the "other." Hope I can do justice to the worthiness of your query.
Maybe there is truth that one just knows by instinct, but I think even that kind of awareness is deepened, enriched, extended, fortified, and/or altered by validation from contact with an outside source(s). Perhaps it is contact with that "other" that rounds us from being self-absorbed, complacent, and one-dimensional to being "whole." For example, I read Parker Palmer's THE COURAGE TO TEACH a while ago and found myself pretty much in total agreement with everything. But I have taken on layers and levels of understanding that shade and color my concurring viewpoints...I guess I have taken some of Mr. Palmer into myself, and I am larger, fuller, and more complete because of that. Tennyson's Ulysses says , "I am a part of all that I have met." Reflexivity involves becoming a part of all that we meet, even if it is violent rejection of things we find reprehensible.The disgust enters our being and perhaps strengthens us to resist it more fully in the future.
On the Myers Briggs personality test, I am a strong introvert. I understand this to mean that I find my sense of reality within. I operate on instinct a lot of the time. In this respect, I am very attuned to your question about whether understanding must always come from a secondary source. But I guess I have realized that, for me, even that "knowing" that seems to come from some interior source must always be tried and tested in the crucible of the external "other." Otherwise, I run the risk of hubris at best and delusions of grandeur at worst.
Can you believe I have four large dogs all sitting around me here grooming themselves and wondering what the heck is the hold up for the evening walk? Reading and responding to your post was even more fun than hitting the road with two of the four of them, and that is high praise to you! Thanks for the fun of the dialogue.
I certainly do think she has come to a place where she values the kind of learning that comes from reflexivity over other kinds of learning. She seems to try, though, to remain open to other forms but does not always succeed.
ReplyDeleteThere is also "the chicken and the egg" thing to consider: where did your initial ideas come from? Everything we know is layered with the stuff we've learned from everyone else.
ReplyDeleteHow tactfully you voiced your "concern" with Qualley's constant refrain of looking from a different viewpoint. Before the 22nd, I also had a feeling after reading her text that she was wanting us to completely change our views to almost match someone else. How dare that happen!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAfter the last 2 days of discussion though, I think that reflexivity is just opening up your world, expanding everything that is out there which you can possiblly look at and then coming back to your "original" and finding that it may be altered and opened. And, WOW, your original may not be the same as the new being. But, you know what: that is OK.
Lynn, you spoke of this sooooo eloquently.
Yes, Lynn, dreamy reply--no wonder your students love you.
ReplyDelete