 | Timeless wisdom |
|
Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don't resist them - that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like. The key to growth is the introduction of higher dimensions of consciousness into our awareness. Emergence from complexity and chaos will permit higher dimensions of consciousness/higher levels of awareness. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
| Are you talking about openness to change? Or openness to information and learning? |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
This is another clever virtual gambit (they're piling up now, but nice pics, by the way)? Or what? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
If I may bring this over from another more-crowded discussion: >The issue is an adaptive network, aka a complex ecology. >Openess per se, (now that it has become a hot topic) - well, that doesnt do it either (see the issue of balance, above). Openess dissipates (that's the polite version). http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1060&parent=6823 Is the issue to ensure an adaptive network? What will we do with this adaptive network? Bee-hive and ant colony behavioural studies applied to humans? We wish to mimic the behaviour of these bugs? http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/37_Intranet_as_complex_ecology_final_.pdf What's the impolite version? |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Would the impolite version be, (rather than a unified structure of ant and bee colonies where each member has a designated task and works within a team), everyone going off on their own tangent for their own purpose without regard to those around them and regardless of the initial impetus? Adaptive, yes but is it purposeful or meaningful? Are we concentrated on ourselves and our own development or do we, as humans, think of the greater good or need? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
What you suggest as the impolite answer sounds chaotic/complex to me. A purposeful/meaningful approach sounds less complex. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, is this what you mean? By concentrating on our own development, is the greater good served, as we understand chaos/complexity and emergent structures etc? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Yes, that is what I mean. Will ‘openness’ lead to more ‘chaotic/complex “I want it now” individuals’ rather than active, responsible, participants of the world in which they live? Is it simply about what society/teachers view as ‘knowledge’ and what the societal/educational/governmental standard is for an acceptable citizen? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
I am not a professional, paid teacher. I have heard from those that are, that the goal of K-12 'teaching' is to create citizens. Based on what I have heard professional, paid teachers say, the curriculum is set by 'the state' in order to achieve that purpose. Would openness conflict with a set curriculum? Is that what you are suggesting? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Hi 'Old Soc' Education for the masses was original set up as a control mechanism; hence the hierarchical setting of the traditional classroom, etc. The setting of the classroom has changed and the delivery of curriculum has changed I am not so sure that the original reason for education has changed; it still seems to be about control and, of course, money. Research shows that the countries with higher educated people fair better economically. I mean in some countries children as young as 10 are committing suicide because they didn't get into the 'right' school (how sad and misguided is that). It is not so much 'openness' and the curriculum (as I love the interaction & communication that 'openness' affords the curriculum) but 'openness' and the individual. Pure connectivism is about the learner's voyage of discovery and how they link it and use it. My concern is the purposefulness and meaningfulness of that voyage and the development of the individual. Noone comes into the world knowing everything; there are dangers. Is the support given by teachers viewed as control and 'closeness'? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
I get confused between your idea about connectivism being about the individual's voyage and the other ideas I have read here about networks,complexity theory, chaos etc. which seem to favour a collective view of connectivism. The emphasis on networks, the apparent diminishing of the individual to a mere node amongst other nodes, including non-human nodes lends me to view the entire system as a control-based, closed entity. In the theory end, anyway, as discussed by George and Stephen and many others. in the practical classroom sense, I like your ideas and emphasis on the learner. The trick then would be to help the learner without exercising undue control maybe? The goal being to 'turn the learner on, not off'? And emphasize the teacher's goal as being support, not control? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Hi ‘Old Socs’ Many apologies for any confusion; I will try and clarify my thinking. Guess what I mean by an individual’s voyage is that, although the individual is part of network, where the individual goes/not goes or what the individual does/not do or how deep/shallow the connections are, depends on the individual and what they want from the network. My concern is whether the individual attains well-rounded, rather than one-sided, understanding to make (as fully as possible) informed decisions. Totally agree, that the goal of a teacher is to ‘turn the learner on and not off’ so they can develop life-long autonomous learning skills. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
| This is exactly my concern, that high levels of individualism may mean low levels of social responsibility. If old-fashioned education, despite its many failures, is creating a form of acculturation that can offset that individualism, I'm not sure that self-guiding learning is an adequate replacement. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Hi Lisa It is an issue that needs to be looked into and evaluated. There already are disturbing signs of too much thinking about self in our daily lives eg road rage, parking lot arguments ‘I saw that space first’, grocery check out lines, credit card debts, fraud, theft, murder, etc. I understand that the teachers view of ‘what knowledge is’ can have a controlled, closed approach to learning and that societal/educational/governmental educational expectations can also have the same effect. However, I too am unsure that self guided learning is going to be a positive thing for all. Is it too ‘closed’ to have students investigate specific environmental or humanitarian issues? Would students explore and investigate different aspects of mathematics, grammar, art forms, sport, etc without the teacher creating some impetus? Surely, as educators, we have a responsibility to make students aware of global issues and other disciples and to think beyond self. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
| Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Totally agree with this statement. However, learning is still engaging & motivating, with the students taking ownership of the task even though the teacher set the task impetus for a specific learning outcome. For instance I have used visualization from Exploring Earth, On the Cutting Edge,101 Science, The Jason Project or Quest Atlantis (to name a few), to introduce concepts and issues as an impetus for students to investigate further. Also used the following sites for English: Writing Fix, BBC Schools, Text Adventure Games, Spark Island, The Three Little Pigs, Starfall & Guide to Grammar & Writing (again to name a few) to focus on writing skills, critical thinking, etc. Same can be said for Numeracy, Art and other integrated learning. Please see bookmarks at del.icio.us. I guess what Lisa and I am concerned about is the purposefulness and meaningfulness of a student's learning and their development as an active participant in the world in which they live if teachers take a 'laissez faire' approach to education. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
How do you teach the man to fish? Do you simply say 'show me how you fish?' or Do you take 2 rods & reels and maybe some bait then together go to the river to fish. Sit along side him while he tries out different ways of casting his line, help him untangle the line when necessary and encourage him to try again until he has the confidence to do it on his own. I do not see anything controlling or spoon-feeding in this method but rather a supporting role. This course has been set up in a similar fashion. We were not told 'show me connectivism' but given topics to investigate in relation to connectivism to come to our own conclusions. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
We learn as one, our learning is in the connecting, but not in the connections. Knowledge is found through the connecting, but is not in the connecting. Means are different than ends. Beware of false gods, and gold. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
| It's just not the same when you make up the quotes. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
I agree, I think it is better when L Tzu makes new ones up. Here's why: Great indeed is the sublimity of the Creative, to which all beings owe their beginning and which permeates all heaven. If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading. Hard to understand some of these. Do you have any quotes for us, original ones to share? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Well, this illustrates part of the problem inherent in making them up. The first quote is easy to recognize and is familiar to anyone who has studied Taoism. It is from the I Ching, the 1st hexagram. Understanding this quote means understanding its context of the I Ching itself, which is intended as a book of divination, not a statement of philosophy. But the second appears nowhere in the Tao Te Ching or the I Ching. It has been made up by someone. Yet now we see it all over the internet, attributed to Lao Tzu. But it is a fake. Just as well, because it is a piece of tautological nonsense, and not really meaningful or representative of anything to do with Taoist philosophy. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
| I agree Stephen. It is a shame that people make these things up, confuses the essence of the original with the transient thoughts of the current times. No one can add to the holiness of sayings such as those of Lao Tzu the real one. Taoist philosophy is fixed, I think you are saying, and is not dynamic, and any additions from this age must be wrong. We need to cling to the original sayings, they are the only ones of value. Is this what you are saying? I agree, if this is so. There should be only one way of understanding of these quotes, like you say, in the context in which they are given. There is little point in having a diversity of understandings, this is wrong, and fakes only promote this problem. If I have misunderstood, I am sorry, and will rethink my position. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
| I guess my best suggestion here would be for you to actually read the Tao Te Ching. Then you will be able to determine for yourself whether you were wrong. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
It is looking like I was wrong about your interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. It seems that Tao is dynamic, not fixed as shown by the first two lines of my copy: A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels. Do you agree with thjs understanding of the Tao? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Well, I'm not sure it would constitute an "understanding of the Tao". But this direction of thinking is probably more in keeping with Lao Tzu. The Tao Te Ching is a work that take a lot of thought in order to understand. For example, you write, "names can be given, but not permanent labels." But why not? This statement doesn't advance beyond similar-sounding statements in the Tao te Ching. But what is it that underlies the lot of them. When the Tao says "the Tao is a thing that cannot be spoken," how does this tie in? My own take is that the labels we give to things in the world - and in particular, the way we valuate things - are things that we, as humans, bring to them, as a way of understanding them, and not something inherent in themselves. This understanding - that the names, the categories, the labels - are created by us, is at once liberating, because it gives us a way to see behind the mere pretenses of society, but at the same time inhibiting, because we lose our grasp on what is true and what is false, what is rigth and what is wrong. What, then, to do? What is the conduct of someone who is thus liberated and constrained? Here Taosim and Confucianism agree, it is in the management of one's own conduct, one's own rightness, one's own propriety, to which we must turn. And how do we know that this is the right way? Because in our attantion to our own propriety, we find the way to effecting propriety in the world. Just as one achieves fame, not by seeking fame, but by seeking knowledge or truth or justice. One achieves wealth, not by greed, but by generosity. This, in a nutshell, is a quick outline of how I understand the Tao, after a lifetime of study. It may say something different to you. But whatever it says, I'm sure, the reward will be worth the effort taken to understand it. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Thank you. You are very passionate about the Tao, and philosophy in general I think. I wish I had taken the time earlier in my life to explore the depths of these, but the process of life got in the way. I agree with your thoughts on human labelling of things, i.e. the label not being an inherent quality of the item so labelled. "man (humankind) is the measure of all things etc.' is one of my favourite sayings (Protagoras, revised). i will have to study more to make the next steps. One of my views on this >"the Tao is a thing that cannot be spoken," is that we don't have sufficient words to describe the Tao properly, we must speak in riddles and around the matter, as it does not lend itself to definition, or labelling. Or perhaps the writer just wishes to keep it undefined. Or maybe definitions were not available at that time.Or maybe language will only take us so far, and is not capable of expressing all of our knowledge of phenomena/noumena (the latter for sure?) Thanks again |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Going by this logic, could not 'superfluous knowledge' or 'over-thinking about self' be a 'false god' and 'our thoughts' or 'ideas' (that we think as soooo right)be the 'gold' to beware of? Wisdom is found by taking in accurate knowledge (Colossians 1:9-10; Colossians 3:10; 1Timothy 2:4; 2Peter2:20) otherwise, though we show a zeal for God & learning (Romans 10:2) aren't we 'always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth' (2Timothy3:7)? |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Adaptive networks depend on the self-organising entities within them. If the entities are human, with a full tool box of flexible semiotics, including irony, etc, then you get something interesting. If the entities are bugs, you get bug-ville (rather instinctive, uninteresting behaviour - seen it once, seen most of it, unless you have the time to watch it for years). The impolite version: openness sucks. Complex adaptive networks require constraints and openness - in balance. For instance, a radically open course of thousands (this one?), open to the masses, with very little stucture is an interesting experiment (not). Its been dissipating for some time now, by its little self, and also aided and abetted by the clunky Downes intervention (there I go again, giving you the polite version) - but this is an online environment, so some decorum is necessary, no? The avatars gambit seems to be unstupid on the other hand, and quite neat, and may be a way to recoup. The avatars are providing some classical online 'weaving', like this Athenian post of yours, which provides some 'dynamic structuring' - about time I would say. |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
> The impolite version: openness sucks. Complex adaptive networks require constraints and openness - in balance. If you've been following this course, you'd know that openness is one of four essential conditions to a successful (ie., semenatically useful) network (autonomy, diversity and interactivity being the others). You would also know that there are other conditions that are important for networks generally - the seven or so 'Ds' - distributed, disaggregated, etc. And you would know that I argue that there ought to be limits to growth in networks - that networks ought not be 'scale free' - in order to prevent the excesses of the 'big spike'. Nowhere in this course has it been argued that openness, purely and simply, by itself with no other consideration, is the ultimate desiderata. The representation of it as such in this post is factually incorrect (in addition to impolite). |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
One who is too insistent on his own views, finds few to agree with him To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good |
| Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. (Tao Te Ching, 9) |
 | Timeless Wisdom of the Buddhism |
|
Getting what you want, and avoiding getting what you do not want Wanting (instant) happiness, and not wanting unhappiness Wanting fame, and not wanting to be unknown Wanting praise, and not wanting blame. "If there is something you truly want to know, then you truly want to listen to your own wisdom. You know, meditation is learning how to listen with your own wisdom, so that you can see. I think why meditation is amazingly important, is that somehow our unconscious world is much bigger. It is huge, universal, and we don't understand that one. Meditation allows this world to be light and knowable, understandable. That is why it is important. Normally we are totally robbed by the egotistic, conventional mind, not allowing the fundamental mind to be functioning. That is why one should have confidence, truly... through experience, one has confidence in one's spiritual journey." |
| Re: Openness |
|
OK, guilty as charged. Apologies. What I had in mind was >>Unconstrained openness results in anarchy. To have any connectiveness at all requires defining something to which the participants can connect. Dissipation will naturally occur unless the defined 'something' is captivating enough to hold participant attention. (Jim's post, see below) The serious point is that lots of people spend substantial amounts of time hanging out in connected forums (I would be hesitate to say networks) which are either a waste of time (not my business, really, but its sad), or they are potential opportunities for unscrupulous predators. There are presumably quite a few, very busy, Onliners-Anonymous support forums, no? So its a plea for openess and balance and structure, and, now that you mention it, decorum. I suppose its also an articulation of some of my own frustration at some of Catherine's gambits, and the forced subscription gambit, both of which well ... choose your own words. Further, my own experience in running online learning is that, particularly when the paritcipants time is very limited, a measure of structure is essential. Openness translates, in my practice, to gambits like 'bringing in the participants own data' and working up from there, in a series of iterative explorations of that data. The critical thinking learning activity is a good example of what I mean. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Unconstrained openness results in anarchy. To have any connectiveness at all requires defining something to which the participants can connect. Dissipation will naturally occur unless the defined 'something' is captivating enough to hold participant attention. Those that ran the Obama campaign seem to have understood this very well. One must always maintain one's connection to the past and yet ceaselessly pull away from it. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
Lao Tzu does apply to networked participation for me. Education in the industrial mode relies on participants being scoped into a group and the topic time outcome to be scoped by a teacher/mentor/leader. the group is a way of abstracting value from a complex context. In open network practice all the complexity is in situ with the participants learning to find what aspects of themselves are fit for a specific purpose. The purpose and other scoping criteria for participation are more emergent and negotiated and are often a part of the process of learning and defining in themselves. I see parallels between industrial farming models where the valuable species is grown as a crop juxtaposed with traditional gathering or permaculture approaches where the value to the gatherer/learner is a function of finding something of value in a complex context which may be serving other kinds of value propositions for other species or groups simultaneously. In a network context we are developing skills in contributing facets of ourselves which we think may be of use to others defined by our emergent understanding of each other and either a collective or series of individual value propositions which we are recognising as threads to which we can add value. For me ecology is a thread in networked learning both as a metaphor and as an underlying need and purpose. I have seen others in the group with these interests. I think this real world interest is a parallel or implicit value or opportunity in this approach to structuring learning. We have the opportunity to have high fidelity data from the fingertips of our learning communities and we have the opportunity to apply that kind of clarity to the service of a purpose. For me the purpose is a reconnection with fidelity around ecological custodianship and skills which enable us to honor that responsibility. Other people's mileage will vary. That is a part of what we bring to this open opportunity. |
 | Re: Timeless wisdom |
|
I have prepared a post in respond to this timeless wisdom discussion. http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com Comments? |