Although I am still digesting this text, I wanted to get our
conversation started. At the end of Ch.
1, Davis states that this book was written to make sense of the world. For this
first post, I am going to focus on understanding the metaphysical (first part
of ch. 2 and ch. 3). Once I finish
reading Ch. 10, we can discuss the physical (second part of ch. 2 and ch. 10).
To help us make sense of the world, Davis presents two
worldviews: the metaphysical and the physical.
Davis defined metaphysics as, “the things after (or beyond) the physical
(or natural)” (p. 16). While Davis
suggests four key indicators to a metaphysical attitude, I will focus on the
fourth one: “an attitude toward knowledge that involves the dichotomization of
forms” (p. 18). He divides knowledge
into two categories: gnosis and episteme.
I thought it was helpful to see the examples side by side:
God versus Newton
Religion versus Science
Transcendent versus Reductive
Enchantment verses Explanation
Gnosis is “…a reference to mystic-religious belief” and “had
to do with matters of existence and questions of meaning” (p. 26). Figurative devises are used to help explain
the world around us and to help us understand how the world works. Because there are certain things about this
world that are beyond our comprehension, figurative devises are “used to
address matters of meaning in ways that logic and reason cannot” (p. 27).
What were your thoughts on how Davis explained the use of
myths?
Episteme is the ““…everyday know-how that is based in a
logical-rational mode of thought—was focused on practical matters around how
the world works” (p. 26). This category
of knowledge doesn’t need figurative devises to understand the world, but
realistic information and facts. It uses
the analytic method “to reduce all claims to truth to their root assumptions in
order to reassemble an unshakeable edifice of knowledge” (p. 32).
At one point in time, gnosis and episteme, were both seen as
necessary categories of knowledge, but throughout the ages, they’ve been pitted
against each other and episteme overshadows gnosis.
What are your thoughts on this transition?
I think it is important that we start on Davis' take on myths, in that "Myths needn't be taken literally to be taken seriously." Pg 30.
ReplyDeleteI think this is important because this allows us some wiggle room in interpretations between each other and within ourselves.
He notes on page 28 that an artist is not fully aware of what they are doing but they are assumed to be fully aware. This applies to what we are doing as educators and students. In a sense, we do not know what we are doing with knowledge and meaning, but we still use them in classrooms and in our own learning. It's important that we not claim to know, but also we must strive for better understandings of these ideas we use.
Reaching back to Tuesday night, I interpreted episteme to be the actual schooling part of modern education, and gnosis as being the meaning and knowledge we try to us within education and as a product of the schooling or episteme.
From all the chapters I latched on to the ideas of inter-subjectivity and inter-objectivity. Inter-subjectivity being the response to knowledge which is out there (pg 96) and inter-objectivity being our relationship to the knowledge with which we interact (101). The changing nature of knowledge, or it's definition, actually changes the knowledge and it's uses. I think this especially applicable to how schooling and education interact with each other in the classroom and in the society. Most of us do not consider this idea in our everyday work and lives, but it is important because when these ideas change, so does the focus within education.
I hope I am being clear enough. I too am still digesting these ideas and haven't yet formed my own inter-subjectivity of language in order to properly articulate the connections I'm beginning to make. So I welcome your input and discussion to better formulate my thoughts.
In terms of the physical, learning is seen as being recursive or transformative in nature. “Each new event of learning entails a transformation of what has already been learned as it opens up new vistas of possibility” (p. 23). Davis divides the physical into two categories, intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. Intersubjectivity aligns to the arts and humanities, while interobjectivity aligns with the natural sciences. “…intersubjectivist discourses are…focused on the human—on language and other symbol systems, on culture, on person identity, and so on” (p. 110). Knowledge is socially constructed or discovered. Humanity has learned to see the world through inherited language and their own interpretation of the world. Interobjectivist believe “knowing is equated with being and thought is understood in terms of ongoing adaptations of dynamic circumstances” (p. 110). Knowledge is formed through interactions or experiences. What do you think Davis meant by “there are no observerless observations or measurerless measurements?” (p. 101).
DeleteI think he meant as objective as we'd like to consider ourselves, we can never take our context, our reality out of the situation. Macedo discusses this at length in the forward to Pedagogy of Freedom. Blasting Harvard Graduate School of Education and really anyone who thinks they should or, even can, separate the circumstances in which someone lives and the ideology of the researcher from the research itself. Their seems be a push for educational research, which is really about human beings (intersubjective, focused on the human, culture, personal identity) to be more inter- objective, to be more aligned with natural sciences. I think its difficult, if not impossible to take the observer out of the observed, or the measurement out of the measured. Where we come from our experience and even (or especially) our goals can color what we see and what we report. But perhaps that is our humanity and not necessarily a bad thing if we an recognize and try to account for it.
DeleteLindsay, I know I've told you this, but you really should take Qual. I Research, as I think you would love it because there is a human element to it. Of course, it is dependent upon which epistemology and theoretical perspective you choose, because the way each of us views the world will shape the way we research the world. A few qualitative approaches that contain the human element include: narrative research, phenomenology, ethnography or case study, just to name a few. In fact, the observer is a key component as the observer must tell a story (narrative), describe the essence of a lived phenomenon (phenomenology), describe or interpret the shared patterns of culture of a group (ethnography), or provide an in-depth understanding of a case (case study). Much of the data is collected through interviews or observations. Although it hasn’t always been the case, qualitative research is considered just as scholarly as quantitative research.
DeleteMy thoughts on how Davis explains the use of myths and their rooting in gnosis has to do with something I see interwoven throughout these chapters. The use of language as essential to our understanding. He refers to gnosis as "the mode of thinking that makes use of various figurative devices in an effort to make sense of existence" p 29. He is referring to more than just language here, like painting sculpture, music and performance, but myth and allegory are also specifically referenced. It is interesting to me that these stories weren't meant to be sequential or literal, they were just a way of guiding, informing, leading. Perhaps it is a modern, Western lens that I look through when it does seem odd that they are not sequential. I interpret that as my own leaning toward episteme, which I attribute to my upbringing and education. I as my own person strive for balance between these two concepts. For me its almost as epistemological knowledge is what we have to do, gnosistical? is more what we want to do, what brings joy, what makes life worth living.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to another consideration about the meaning of life since we are after all, talking philosophy. Davis discusses the "rejection of the supernatural" and its problems. p 98.This prompted questions about right and wrong, what is appropriate behavior and is consciousness just a chemical reaction? I have often thought about our wills, impulses and reactions just being a series of electrical impulses passing from one synapse to another. But I can see where that would leave many people longing for a bigger purpose, a more romantic meaning to life than just electricity and chemicals. I have often opened discussion to my high school classes about Marx's phrase, "religion is the opiate of the masses." But for some this might relegate existence to aimlessness and emptiness. And judging by what happened in the Matrix, this is not the ideal way to sustain human life.
Matt, when you said it is important that we not claim to know, my thoughts echoed that. Considering all the changes and morphing that have occurred over the recorded course of humanity, I think it would be arrogant of ourselves to think we have "arrived". Future humanity may look upon our investigations as primitive, our associations lacking, our perceptions incomplete. As Davis points out, "a substantial body of evidence has been amassed around the influence of the unconscious, including the perhaps surprising result of that humans may be aware of less than one millionth of the perceptual possibilities that impinge on their senses at any given moment." p 107. Not only are our perceptions incomplete, we don't necessarily have the language to express them anyway.
So, how do we wrap this all around to education? I suppose to be fair to philosophy and the readings we should think even larger. Much like our conversation the first night... if our definition does not fit both teacher and learner than it is inaccurate. Here, if our thinking only applies to education then perhaps it too is not valid enough? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteHowever, considering the "rejection of the supernatural." I don't know if questions of right and wrong are valid either... In our conversations two weeks ago we noted that a bad teacher or a bad lesson, or even the trial by fire are all learning experiences in themselves, in that you learn regardless. Perhaps we must go even larger, is the act of education supernatural in itself? What purpose do we have to learn or to teach but to satisfy the desires of the society, yet something keeps the machine rolling? Students continue to attend school though they see no value. Perhaps it is not English or Math in which they find value, but within the schooling environment something is there that is valuable.
In some ways, education and schooling is it's own religion. Perhaps that is the opiate...The thing is that it is bigger than our classes, bigger than our schools, bigger than many of the things we consider valuable. Even without centralized education in this country education or schooling would continue.
I don't know that we will be looked upon as primitive or lacking. I often then about the leaps and gains that have been made to make the world we live in now and doubt that I could have been as insightful. People challenged what was normal, succeeded, thought they would be found as lacking, and have become heralded as geniuses before their time. I do not propose we are too, but as a society, as cultures, we have grown to a level of understanding and level of knowledge that is not evolutionary required and that is a fantastic thought to think about...
I think one way to wrap some of this around the current state of education is to perhaps consider episteme not as necessarily the way we school, but even more specifically the types of schooling you can get. I almost feel as though episteme harkins to practical, can use to build stuff, vocational knowledge (like Social Efficiency) . "Episteme- that is, everyday know how that is based in a logical-rational mode of thought- was focused on practical matters around how the world works." p 26
DeleteTherefore, gnosis in contrast is thinking about things, asking bigger questions, searching for understandings, knowledge for the sake of knowledge, not to necessarily make anything or produce anything other than thought, perhaps like a college education might be viewed (like Scholar Academic). On page 28, Davis discusses the "curious status of art in today's world- particularly in the episteme-focused academic world." That we are always poking it and prodding it and asking why, instead of maybe just saying, "wow".
"Gnosis tends to look backwards in time to ask big questions about the way things are, whereas episteme is forward looking, reaching into the future with questions about possibility. " p 30
But perhaps my thoughts limit the idea of episteme? Since after all, much thinking about thinking also came under its umbrella.
Lindsay, I agree with you. Davis suggests that a shift in thinking has occurred from metaphysical to physical; from learning that is orderly, a linear progression, the incomplete child to learning that is transforming, recursive, the whole child. While I do believe this constructivist way of thinking is being taught in universities and the epistemological stance of most educators, it seems public schools are being forced into more of a social efficiency ideology. Where standards, accountability, requirements, and evaluations are more important than the child.
DeleteI agree, that school is often a social efficiency, or even a behaviorist environment. That standards, accountability, and evaluations are more important than the child. However, I think it is important to note that a school system is more often a reflection of societal expectations and less of an idealistic endeavor. I understand where these pressures come from, everything we have and know is measured, weighed, and counted. A lot of money gets funneled into education and people want to know it is making a difference. Not a difference in individual lives, or in a future society, but differences now. So we test, we measure, we keep count. Perhaps the role of educating the person no longer rests at home, and now rests on educators, and that role cannot be measured.
ReplyDeleteI think to my classroom, and my coteacher. Both always want to know percentage grades. "Did I make a 100?" "How much off for each question?" "Will this be graded?" "How many can I miss and still pass?" These questions are representative of a much more systematic issue. I say issue and not problem, because is it a problem? They are theories that are dominant and this particular juncture, I don't agree with them, but how does a student go home and answer "What is your grade in reading?" with "I'm learning to love reading?" The thing is, without the measurements, many people do not have the motivation. Again, I don't agree with it, but it's the parameters that we have at this point. Perhaps it would be different if school wasn't mandated, but it's mandation comes with requirements, and people want to know that their kids are learning, not just becoming good people. Not that people learn at different rates, that they learned 7th grade, 12th grade, etc.
This all loops around and is my proof of the metaphysical to physical shift you mention Jenny. Though I think it is the opposite of the description you give, learning now is linear, no longer recursive. We want it to be transforming and recursive, and that can be a buzz word, but honestly, the whole system is set up on a number line from K-20 with data points along the way.
Now I am a little confused...
DeleteI was thinking that Davis suggested a shift from metaphysical to physical, but what I was trying to say is I believe the shift, in terms of education right at this moment, was the opposite. Which is what I believe you are saying too Matt. I don't think I was clear.