Chaos
I am overwhelmed by cck08 emails. This is “moogle”, I think. Yey. But then I opened one with a really interesting link:
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=550&action=synopsis
Using the analogy of rhyzomes, Dave Cormier’s article-
Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum -
is summarized as follows:
The pace of technological change has challenged historical notions of what counts as knowledge. Dave Cormier describes an alternative to the traditional notion of knowledge. In place of the expert-centered pedagogical planning and publishing cycle, Cormier suggests a rhizomatic model of learning. In the rhizomatic model, knowledge is negotiated, and the learning experience is a social as well as a personal knowledge creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target.
The article reminded me of the sorts of questions I was exploring a few years ago, when I was reading about qualitative methodologies and the underpinning epistemologies of the various approaches. Constructionism was generally believed to be compatible with postmodernism and its entourage of chaos. It purported that we create our own truths, perhaps depending on our previous learning patterns?
When I investigated this further, to my astonishment, my path actually lead me back to Objectivism. Emerging through the chaos were the perennial archetypes; the platonic forms that shape human knowledge across the cultures.
I wonder-
- Will this brave, new pedagogy meander back to the pillars of human understanding that Jung identified as archetypes, and Plato as mythical forms?
- Will I overcome my frustration with technical detail, that screams at me – “No. No. Not that way! Go back! This is case sensitive! Start again. What do you mean you’ve forgotten what you were going to say?!”
September 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Ha. I certainly hope that this wont meander back that way. I’ve returned to one of the foundational pieces on postmodernism (The postmodern condition) this week after all the great comments on my article to reassess where my ideas are going. http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/pm/lyotard-introd.htm here is a link to the introduction to it by the author… Lyotard.
Postmodernism is (to me:today), an acceptance of the loss of the metanarratives represented by the platonic forms… an acceptance that their appearance should be seen as a representation of ‘power over’ rather than some kind of objective truth. Thanks for sharing your thoughts… they’ve been helpful for me.
d.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 am
Thank you for your response, Dave. I am inspired by your article.
So am I to assume you now write from the existential rather than the transcendental perspective? My journey started there and brought me to the notion of objective truth (at least thusfar). Actually, I rather like the idea of parallel truths – what (I think – from memory) Husserl calls “apodictic” truth – that is, taking two contradictory ideas and believing in them both at the same time. I wonder if “being” is one type of existence and “knowing” is another?
Goodness – sorry about that!
I am so excited to receive my first comment on my new blogging experience.