We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little photo slide show <http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/> in the corner. The mingling crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more projections).
About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller groups discussed.
At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by Steven Parker <http://sparker.blip.tv/> running around with a video camera and grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just another day of FLNW really :)
I'm hanging out to see you all in Wellington! I'll be at the front of ITPNZ on The Terrace at 11am to meet up with those of you arriving there. Happy to go with (any collective) plans for the day...
> We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as > that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little photo > slide show <http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/> in the corner. The mingling > crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their > rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more > projections).
> About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the > locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they > wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet > succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group > conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues > and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
> We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller > groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is > about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point > out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not > sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I > recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller > groups discussed.
> At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by Steven > Parker <http://sparker.blip.tv/> running around with a video camera and > grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that > Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while > to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
> We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to > dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just > another day of FLNW really :)
> <span class="gmail_quote"><br><br></span> > <div text="black" bgcolor="white"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px" alt="" src="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" border="0"> > </a>Quite an interesting day in Auckland yesterday. We kicked off at 2pm in Auckland University of Technology.<br><br>We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but as that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/" target="_blank">photo slide show</a> in the corner. The mingling crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more projections). > <br><br>About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues they wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't yet succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole group conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important issues and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people. > <br><br>We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to point out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm not sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking observation. I recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller groups discussed. > <br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&a..." target="_blank">http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&a... > </a>"> <br><br>At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://sparker.blip.tv/" target="_blank">Steven Parker</a> running around with a video camera and grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given that Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a while to update his videos... watch that space in other words... > <br><br>We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left went to dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just another day of FLNW really :)<br><br>Now we are in Wellington, in the very impressive > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.museumhotel.co.nz/" target="_blank">Museum Hotel</a>.<br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.efest.org.nz/" target="_blank"> > eFest</a> tomorrow - where I for one plan to try and bring all this together for a book - or more accurately, an album. <br><br>--<br><font color="gray" size="2">Posted by Leigh Blackall to <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://learningnetworkedworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/sept-25-auckland.html" target="_blank"> > THE FUTURE OF LEARNING IN A NETWORKED WORLD</a> at 9/26/2006 03:02:00 PM</font></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>Leigh Blackall<br>+6421736539<br>skype - leigh_blackall<br><a href="http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/"> > http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/</a>
> I'm hanging out to see you all in Wellington! > I'll be at the front of ITPNZ on The Terrace at 11am to meet up with > those of you arriving there. Happy to go with (any collective) plans > for the day...
> > We first had to get through some very restrictive network security, but > as > > that was being worked out Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little > photo > > slide show <http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/> in the corner. The > mingling > > crowd began to converge on the corner as seats where broken out of their > > rows and arranged around the projection. (we should have set up more > > projections).
> > About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then asked the > > locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had issues > they > > wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we hadn't > yet > > succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a whole > group > > conversation were made using show of hands, and while some important > issues > > and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few people.
> > We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when smaller > > groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. This is > > about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to > point > > out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm > not > > sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking > observation. I > > recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while the smaller > > groups discussed.
> > At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what each group said by Steven > > Parker <http://sparker.blip.tv/> running around with a video camera and > > grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' their discussions. Given > that > > Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I think it may take him a > while > > to update his videos... watch that space in other words...
> > We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those left > went to > > dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around 2am. Just > > another day of FLNW really :)
> > eFest <http://www.efest.org.nz/> tomorrow - where I for one plan to try > and > > bring all this together for a book - or more accurately, an album.
> > <span class="gmail_quote"><br><br></span> > > <div text="black" bgcolor="white"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" > href="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" > target="_blank"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: > 320px" alt="" src="http://static.flickr.com/108/252626496_a93fe965ae.jpg" > border="0"> > > </a>Quite an interesting day in Auckland yesterday. We kicked off at 2pm > in Auckland University of Technology.<br><br>We first had to get through > some very restrictive network security, but as that was being worked out > Alex grabbed a projector and set up a little > > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=" > http://flickr.com/photos/tags/flnw/" target="_blank">photo slide show</a> > in the corner. The mingling crowd began to converge on the corner as seats > where broken out of their rows and arranged around the projection. (we > should have set up more projections). > > <br><br>About then I jumped in and introduced the FLNW group. We then > asked the locals if there was anyone with similar interests or if they had > issues they wanted to discuss. But there was a slight stand off still - we > hadn't yet succeeded in opening up the space. Attempts at facilitating a > whole group conversation were made using show of hands, and while some > important issues and discussion was had, it was very much dominated by a few > people. > > <br><br>We stopped for a coffee break, which is normally the time when > smaller groups form to talk about the issues raised in the bigger group. > This is about when the space starts to open in my opinion. Stephen tries to > point out that breaking into smaller groups is when the space closes... I'm > not sure myself... I think Stephen makes a very thought provoking > observation. I recorded him explaining a white board diagram he made while > the smaller groups discussed. > > <br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=" > http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&a..." > target="_blank"> > http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4126240905912531540&a... > > </a>"> <br><br>At the end of the day (6pm) we summed up what > each group said by <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" > href="http://sparker.blip.tv/" target="_blank">Steven Parker</a> running > around with a video camera and grabbing footage of each group 'presenting' > their discussions. Given that Steven jumped on a plane out of here today, I > think it may take him a while to update his videos... watch that space in > other words... > > <br><br>We finished around 7pm, still energised and inspired, and those > left went to dinner together. I think the last person hit the pillow around > 2am. Just another day of FLNW really :)<br><br>Now we are in Wellington, in > the very impressive > > <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=" > http://www.museumhotel.co.nz/" target="_blank">Museum Hotel</a>.<br><br><a > onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=" > http://www.efest.org.nz/" target="_blank"> > > eFest</a> tomorrow - where I for one plan to try and bring all this > together for a book - or more accurately, an album. <br><br>--<br><font > color="gray" size="2">Posted by Leigh Blackall to <a onclick="return > top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=" > http://learningnetworkedworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/sept-25-auckland.html" > target="_blank"> > > THE FUTURE OF LEARNING IN A NETWORKED WORLD</a> at 9/26/2006 03:02:00 > PM</font></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>--<br>Leigh > Blackall<br>+6421736539<br>skype - leigh_blackall<br><a href=" > http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/"> > > http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/</a>
I just read Stephen's post and checked the video from the Auckland session. Interesting points. It in my mind I decided to wrote some words to the list.
I am now in Manila and not sure if I miss more my "group" in Finland or the one in one Pacific island. These groups are very different but obviously connected in some level.
I feel very privileged to be able to be member of so many different kind of "groups", some that stay alive longer (like being Finnish) and some that are meant to be more add-hock and fragile. About some groups I can't even say yet what their meaning for me (and the other groups I am member of) will finally be. For instance I am not sure what the FLNW group will finally mean for me.
What I know is that today my groups are more networked than ever before. The "groups" are connected to each other and the individuals are member of many different groups same time. It's a multidimensional network of individuals and their groups.
The group here in Manila is very different from the one in Finland or from the one I shared some open space last week. I am working hard to adapt to the group in here.
I am not Buddhist, neither great supported of "the New Labour", but could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be between the "closed groups" and "individuals in open networks"?
Why we need the "middle way"? If we all are just individuals in a network we will soon all be the same. Actually we would become one huge group!
Finally I want to thank those who took such a good care of me in your beautiful country with so diverse flora and hmm.. fauna. Take care. You are all always welcome to my sauna (and wear a towel if you do not feel "enough Finn" to be naked with others).
- Teemu
----------------------------------------------- Teemu Leinonen http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/ +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi University of Art and Design Helsinki -----------------------------------------------
I wonder, if I wrote that the sky is blue, whether the dissenting opinion would come from Finland.
"If we all are just individuals in a network we will soon all be the same." This is transparently false.
It took exactly 24 hours for someone to propose a "middle way" (this is what passes for innovation these days). "Could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be between the 'closed groups' and 'individuals in open networks'?"
It will soon be noticed that a person can be both an individual (and hence a member of a network) *and* a member of a group. That they can belong to many networks and many groups. That any number of 'middle ways' can be derived from variations on this theme.
More interesting would be to see some alternative 'middle way' in the form of some sort of an organizational principle that allows things to be both open and closed at the same time, that promotes both unity and diversity at the same time, that promotes both cohesion autonomy at the same time. Read up on your Hegel; you'll find it in Phenomenology of Right. Is that where were you headed, Teemu? We all know our history, right?
More interestingly: web 1.0 is about groups, web 2.0 is about networks. e-learning 1.0 is about groups, e-learning 2.0 is about networks. Someone will write an article about that in a few weeks, probably, carefully washing all sources.
The core of the issue is whether learning in general should be based on groups or networks. Everybody says, 'learning is social', and thus (no?) must be conducted in groups. But networks, too, are social. Learning can be social and not conducted in groups. Where to now, social construction?
Is learning about subsuming your identity, or growing and asserting your identity? Can we define ourselves by why we know and what we do, or must we define ourselves by what we are and what we belong to? Yes, of course you can do both at different times (I am 'Canadian' and 'I write') but when the two conflict, as they inevitably do in education, which prevails?
There's always two ways to read my proposals: the simply way, which sets them up as some sort of polarization (and therefore always open to a 'middle way'), and the accurate way, which enters the topic knowing that I am writing, using limited vocabulary (since language is inherently not sub-symbolic), about complex matters, and that the subtlety inherent in complexity shoudl be understood as always forming a substrate.
Grapes and bananas. Yes, one can always have both, but in sequence. Which first? It does not preclude the other, but it implies a choice. Lurking in the background is always the blender, and you can make a smoothie, even putting the two fruits in at the same time. But when you just want a bite to eat - which first? It depends, of course, on what you want to do, why you want to eat, and whether the economy of Ecuador matters to you.
>I just read Stephen's post and checked the video from the Auckland >session. Interesting points. It in my mind I decided to wrote some >words to the list.
>I am now in Manila and not sure if I miss more my "group" in Finland >or the one in one Pacific island. These groups are very different but >obviously connected in some level.
>I feel very privileged to be able to be member of so many different >kind of "groups", some that stay alive longer (like being Finnish) >and some that are meant to be more add-hock and fragile. About some >groups I can't even say yet what their meaning for me (and the other >groups I am member of) will finally be. For instance I am not sure >what the FLNW group will finally mean for me.
>What I know is that today my groups are more networked than ever >before. The "groups" are connected to each other and the individuals >are member of many different groups same time. It's a >multidimensional network of individuals and their groups.
>The group here in Manila is very different from the one in Finland or >from the one I shared some open space last week. I am working hard to >adapt to the group in here.
>I am not Buddhist, neither great supported of "the New Labour", but >could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be >between the "closed groups" and "individuals in open networks"?
>Why we need the "middle way"? If we all are just individuals in a >network we will soon all be the same. Actually we would become one >huge group!
>Finally I want to thank those who took such a good care of me in your >beautiful country with so diverse flora and hmm.. fauna. Take care. >You are all always welcome to my sauna (and wear a towel if you do >not feel "enough Finn" to be naked with others).
> - Teemu
>----------------------------------------------- >Teemu Leinonen >http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/ >+358 50 351 6796 >Media Lab >http://mlab.uiah.fi >University of Art and Design Helsinki >-----------------------------------------------
--
Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
The debate that yourself and Stephen are representing is a very thought provoking one for me... it keeps me awake... I wish my mind would process quicker, and that I could find the time and space to articulate input sooner, but I am still unsure... need more experience...
I am still unsure what it is Stephen is saying, but am sure that it is something complex and important, perhaps radical... my experience is in line with Teemu's however, that smaller 'groups' naturally form before frank and fluid conversation and sharing happens - even in open networks, groups form... but I'm becoming aware that this experience is simple and obvious and that there is a more complex challenge Stephen wants us to consider - it alludes me still... off to read Hagel...
On 9/27/06, Teemu Leinonen <teemu.leino...@uiah.fi> wrote:
> I just read Stephen's post and checked the video from the Auckland > session. Interesting points. It in my mind I decided to wrote some > words to the list.
> I am now in Manila and not sure if I miss more my "group" in Finland > or the one in one Pacific island. These groups are very different but > obviously connected in some level.
> I feel very privileged to be able to be member of so many different > kind of "groups", some that stay alive longer (like being Finnish) > and some that are meant to be more add-hock and fragile. About some > groups I can't even say yet what their meaning for me (and the other > groups I am member of) will finally be. For instance I am not sure > what the FLNW group will finally mean for me.
> What I know is that today my groups are more networked than ever > before. The "groups" are connected to each other and the individuals > are member of many different groups same time. It's a > multidimensional network of individuals and their groups.
> The group here in Manila is very different from the one in Finland or > from the one I shared some open space last week. I am working hard to > adapt to the group in here.
> I am not Buddhist, neither great supported of "the New Labour", but > could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be > between the "closed groups" and "individuals in open networks"?
> Why we need the "middle way"? If we all are just individuals in a > network we will soon all be the same. Actually we would become one > huge group!
> Finally I want to thank those who took such a good care of me in your > beautiful country with so diverse flora and hmm.. fauna. Take care. > You are all always welcome to my sauna (and wear a towel if you do > not feel "enough Finn" to be naked with others).
> - Teemu
> ----------------------------------------------- > Teemu Leinonen > http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/ > +358 50 351 6796 > Media Lab > http://mlab.uiah.fi > University of Art and Design Helsinki > -----------------------------------------------
Thank you Teemu for your wisdom and presence on the tour I really appreciated the effort you made to travel so far for such a short time and the wisdom you shared with us in Northland. I hope that you can come back again for a longer trip there is much more to see and do here (and I'm sure we can arrange a sauna somewhere :)
In this case though, the dissenting opinion comes from Wellington NZ where the sky is grey (today). I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. Nice mixture.
My 2c-more on this : One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity in a 'group' . (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :) Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both. Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic. We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group gets bigger school. Groups of groups. And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. It's still 'social'. Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger). We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to the political economy of learning in NZ . So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this group, or the network?
-Stanley
On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> I wonder, if I wrote that the sky is blue, whether the dissenting > opinion would come from Finland.
> "If we all are just individuals in a network we will soon all be the > same." This is transparently false.
> It took exactly 24 hours for someone to propose a "middle way" (this is > what passes for innovation these days). "Could there be "middle way" or > "third way"? Something that would be between the 'closed groups' and > 'individuals in open networks'?"
> It will soon be noticed that a person can be both an individual (and > hence a member of a network) *and* a member of a group. That they can > belong to many networks and many groups. That any number of 'middle > ways' can be derived from variations on this theme.
> More interesting would be to see some alternative 'middle way' in the > form of some sort of an organizational principle that allows things to > be both open and closed at the same time, that promotes both unity and > diversity at the same time, that promotes both cohesion autonomy at the > same time. Read up on your Hegel; you'll find it in Phenomenology of > Right. Is that where were you headed, Teemu? We all know our history, > right?
> More interestingly: web 1.0 is about groups, web 2.0 is about networks. > e-learning 1.0 is about groups, e-learning 2.0 is about networks. > Someone will write an article about that in a few weeks, probably, > carefully washing all sources.
> The core of the issue is whether learning in general should be based on > groups or networks. Everybody says, 'learning is social', and thus (no?) > must be conducted in groups. But networks, too, are social. Learning can > be social and not conducted in groups. Where to now, social construction?
> Is learning about subsuming your identity, or growing and asserting your > identity? Can we define ourselves by why we know and what we do, or must > we define ourselves by what we are and what we belong to? Yes, of course > you can do both at different times (I am 'Canadian' and 'I write') but > when the two conflict, as they inevitably do in education, which prevails?
> There's always two ways to read my proposals: the simply way, which sets > them up as some sort of polarization (and therefore always open to a > 'middle way'), and the accurate way, which enters the topic knowing that > I am writing, using limited vocabulary (since language is inherently not > sub-symbolic), about complex matters, and that the subtlety inherent in > complexity shoudl be understood as always forming a substrate.
> Grapes and bananas. Yes, one can always have both, but in sequence. > Which first? It does not preclude the other, but it implies a choice. > Lurking in the background is always the blender, and you can make a > smoothie, even putting the two fruits in at the same time. But when you > just want a bite to eat - which first? It depends, of course, on what > you want to do, why you want to eat, and whether the economy of Ecuador > matters to you.
> -- Stephen
> Teemu Leinonen wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >I just read Stephen's post and checked the video from the Auckland > >session. Interesting points. It in my mind I decided to wrote some > >words to the list.
> >I am now in Manila and not sure if I miss more my "group" in Finland > >or the one in one Pacific island. These groups are very different but > >obviously connected in some level.
> >I feel very privileged to be able to be member of so many different > >kind of "groups", some that stay alive longer (like being Finnish) > >and some that are meant to be more add-hock and fragile. About some > >groups I can't even say yet what their meaning for me (and the other > >groups I am member of) will finally be. For instance I am not sure > >what the FLNW group will finally mean for me.
> >What I know is that today my groups are more networked than ever > >before. The "groups" are connected to each other and the individuals > >are member of many different groups same time. It's a > >multidimensional network of individuals and their groups.
> >The group here in Manila is very different from the one in Finland or > >from the one I shared some open space last week. I am working hard to > >adapt to the group in here.
> >I am not Buddhist, neither great supported of "the New Labour", but > >could there be "middle way" or "third way"? Something that would be > >between the "closed groups" and "individuals in open networks"?
> >Why we need the "middle way"? If we all are just individuals in a > >network we will soon all be the same. Actually we would become one > >huge group!
> >Finally I want to thank those who took such a good care of me in your > >beautiful country with so diverse flora and hmm.. fauna. Take care. > >You are all always welcome to my sauna (and wear a towel if you do > >not feel "enough Finn" to be naked with others).
> > - Teemu
> >----------------------------------------------- > >Teemu Leinonen > >http://www.uiah.fi/~tleinone/ > >+358 50 351 6796 > >Media Lab > >http://mlab.uiah.fi > >University of Art and Design Helsinki > >-----------------------------------------------
> --
> Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
Stanley Frielick wrote: > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > Nice mixture.
I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> My 2c-more on this : > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > in a 'group' . > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating oneself to the group.
> Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what is meant by responsibility.
You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this way?
> Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what is the common underlying reality here?
What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > It's still 'social'.
See? More group.
> Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to > the political economy of learning in NZ . > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > group, or the network?
The network. Links go out.
If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon from within the confines of four walls?
-- Stephen
--
Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
> > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > time - take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > Nice mixture.
> I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > My 2c-more on this : > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > in a 'group' . > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? - a network is > > simply an aggregation of groups - a metagroup, if you like.)
> Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > Re Hegel - like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > oneself to the group.
> > Point is - you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > is meant by responsibility.
> You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > way?
> > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > is the common underlying reality here?
> What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > We learn to talk and walk in a group - the family. Later the group > > gets bigger - school. Groups of groups. > > And then society - nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > It's still 'social'.
> See? More group.
> > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
> Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities - not in some > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning...
> > I'm all for the sublety of complexity - but I have responsibilities to > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > So I ask - who is the audience of this Google group - is it just this > > group, or the network?
> The network. Links go out.
> If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > from within the confines of four walls?
> -- Stephen
> --
> Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
I was walking through the mall today and 'bing' it went (I think).
Picture this: 20 x 5 year olds in their first kindy class. Teacher splits them into groups of 4. Teacher hands out standard art paper and standard crayons Teacher asks kids to draw their house. Sally sits, slightly confused, more than a bit frighten, peering at the stark white. Sally looks at Tommy - long time accustomed to learning in groups through his 3 years of day care. She see Tommy well on his way with blue sky, green grass, box house with 2 windows and a tilted chimny, stick figure dad, mum, brother and dog. Sally grabs the blue crayon and begins to colour in a blue sky as best she can with cobalt crayon. Learning in groups.
Is this what you mean Stephen?
On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > Nice mixture.
> I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > My 2c-more on this : > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > in a 'group' . > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
> Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > oneself to the group.
> > Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > is meant by responsibility.
> You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > way?
> > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > is the common underlying reality here?
> What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > It's still 'social'.
> See? More group.
> > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are > right?
> Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> > I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > > group, or the network?
> The network. Links go out.
> If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > from within the confines of four walls?
> -- Stephen
> --
> Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
STeven. Your work with the videos is great. Could you up the audio level though? iMovie has a tool in it to up the audio. Suggest you buy a good mic for next years TALO swap meet also... but its great to have these videos. Thanks.
On 9/27/06, sparker <stevenraymondpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stephen Downes wrote: > > Stanley Frielick wrote:
> > > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > > time - take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > > Nice mixture.
> > I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > > My 2c-more on this : > > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > > in a 'group' . > > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? - a network is > > > simply an aggregation of groups - a metagroup, if you like.)
> > Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > > Re Hegel - like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> > Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > > oneself to the group.
> > > Point is - you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> > This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > > is meant by responsibility.
> > You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> > On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > > way?
> > > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> > OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > > is the common underlying reality here?
> > What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > > We learn to talk and walk in a group - the family. Later the group > > > gets bigger - school. Groups of groups. > > > And then society - nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > > It's still 'social'.
> > See? More group.
> > > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> > But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are > right?
> > Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this > explicitly.
> > > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities - not in some > > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no > authenticity. > > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for > learning...
> > > I'm all for the sublety of complexity - but I have responsibilities to > > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > > So I ask - who is the audience of this Google group - is it just this > > > group, or the network?
> > The network. Links go out.
> > If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > > from within the confines of four walls?
> > -- Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
Yes will do so I have a feeling the mic quality on the MacBook is poor. Can you send me Teemus links to scenario based learning have to rush off. Won't be on net. Can you also aemaIL teemu about dark room, he mnentioend in another interview. Have to go now ciao
________________________________
From: futureoflearning@googlegroups.com [mailto:futureoflearning@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leigh Blackall Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 5:03 PM To: futureoflearning@googlegroups.com Subject: ::FLNW:: Re: Networking groups in the diverse world
STeven. Your work with the videos is great. Could you up the audio level though? iMovie has a tool in it to up the audio. Suggest you buy a good mic for next years TALO swap meet also... but its great to have these videos. Thanks.
On 9/27/06, sparker <stevenraymondpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > time - take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > Nice mixture.
> I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > My 2c-more on this : > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > in a 'group' . > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? - a network is > > simply an aggregation of groups - a metagroup, if you like.)
> Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > Re Hegel - like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > oneself to the group.
> > Point is - you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > is meant by responsibility.
> You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > way?
> > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > is the common underlying reality here?
> What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > We learn to talk and walk in a group - the family. Later the group > > gets bigger - school. Groups of groups. > > And then society - nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > It's still 'social'.
> See? More group.
> > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
> Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities - not in some > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning...
> > I'm all for the sublety of complexity - but I have responsibilities to > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > So I ask - who is the audience of this Google group - is it just this > > group, or the network?
> The network. Links go out.
> If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > from within the confines of four walls?
> -- Stephen
> --
> Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca <mailto:step...@downes.ca>
********************************************************************** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. **********************************************************************
> I was walking through the mall today and 'bing' it went (I think).
> Picture this: > 20 x 5 year olds in their first kindy class. > Teacher splits them into groups of 4. > Teacher hands out standard art paper and standard crayons > Teacher asks kids to draw their house. > Sally sits, slightly confused, more than a bit frighten, peering at the > stark white. > Sally looks at Tommy - long time accustomed to learning in groups through > his 3 years of day care. > She see Tommy well on his way with blue sky, green grass, box house with 2 > windows and a tilted chimny, stick figure dad, mum, brother and dog. > Sally grabs the blue crayon and begins to colour in a blue sky as best she > can with cobalt crayon. > Learning in groups.
> Is this what you mean Stephen?
> On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> > Stanley Frielick wrote:
> > > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > > Nice mixture.
> > I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > > My 2c-more on this : > > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity
> > > in a 'group' . > > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > > > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
> > Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try
> > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > > Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> > Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > > oneself to the group.
> > > Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> > This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what
> > is meant by responsibility.
> > You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> > On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this
> > way?
> > > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> > OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > > is the common underlying reality here?
> > What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > > We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > > > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > > > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > > It's still 'social'.
> > See? More group.
> > > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> > But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are > > right?
> > Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this > > explicitly.
> > > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no > > authenticity. > > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> > > I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to
> > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > > > group, or the network?
> > The network. Links go out.
> > If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > > from within the confines of four walls?
> > -- Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free > > Learning
Too often 'groups' who converse in cyber-space finally meet ( resistance is useless ) in their individual physical form and in an attempt to converse, often assume the same poses / formations / power posing / wall building that they seek to avoid in an online networked learning world.
>From my observations this has been another theme we need to add to the
list via the FLNW del.icio.us album.
The difference between a banana and a grape is that in meeting they have the choice of acknowledging they are part of the same fruit salad. Placing one's nose close to the edge of the dish informs you more of the state of health of the mix.
Groups require individuals to seek air more often than not.
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > oneself to the group.
Then there is the latest contribution to the "Hegelian tradition". Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama) and his book "The End of History and the Last Man". Fukuyama claims that we will all be the same: calculating, capitalistic, individualistic, liberal and hmm... free - the way defined by him.
<= And please do not make any fast conclusions: I do not see or claim any person on this list to be like this. It is just my interpretation of the Fukuyama's view of the future human in a world without borders or boundaries.
How wrong he was. I like border and boundaries. I like getting over them, not destroying them.
> Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability. > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no > authenticity.
Just want to point out these paragraphs from Stanley's post. Well said - thank you.
Responsibility, accountability and authenticity are contextual and situational - with a word bound to history, cultures and sub- cultures. They are different in different "groups". There are no universal norm, just like someone pointed out in some discussion last week.
Who's interpretation of these is then right? The one who get most hits in the network?
I've been a ROP (Read Only Participant) but thought to offer a thought on Stephen's distinction between groups and networks. People are usually 'placed' into groups, but they 'form' networks. This, I reckon, is a nice distinction between e-learning 1.0 and 2.0.
The consistent challenge for me with Web 2.0 is how to achieve it within existing institutions. I realise that many of you would happily perform an extreme HE makeover, but the reality is that we still need to apply our efforts within highly structured environments.
By all means stir up for revolution, but until (read 'if') that happens e-learning 2.0 will need to somehow mainstream within the existing places that we know and love so well (and, for many of us, rely on for income).
I've had a look now at the video of the groups/network diagram. I acknowledge that you want to avoid an absolutist interpretation and I do have a better understanding of the subtleties and complexities. But from an educational (rather philosophical) perspective the distinction you draw between 'groups' and 'networks' sounds like the difference between 'closed' and 'open' learning environments. So I guess for me it's not than 'elearning 1.0 = groups (=bad?)' and 'elearning 2.0 = networks (=good?)', but rather that (good) education has always been a synthesis of both 'closed' and 'open' learning. The advent of the internet doesn't necessarily change that. It does disrupt obsolete practices, open up new spaces and approaches, flatten the hierarchies - but it's not the panacea for all our educational ills.
As novices we learn mainly by imitation - copying moves, styles, gestures, ways of seeing and thinking - in 'closed' environments (groups, classes, courses, multiple-choice questions, the 5-yr old kindy class) and gradually acquire competence and mastery through a dialectical movement into 'open' learning. The word 'education' itself has its Latin roots in a dialectic of educere/educare - to instill and to lead out. Like evolution, it's both a conserving and subversive activity. Being free doesn't mean submitting to authority, but rather having the authority and ability to respond - to know when, why and how to act appropriately, to respect other cultures.... I think Dreyfus is saying that this kind of intellectual, emotional and spiritual maturity cannot be acquired *solely* on the internet.
Yes you can learn to swim by being thrown into the deep end, but the chances are that you might drown as well. Or as Bateson suggests, it's the necessary tension between rigour (closed, groups) and imagination (open, networks). Too much rigour leads to paralysis, too much imagination and you go insane.... for me, it's about the balance, synthesis, integration - healthy fruit salad ?.
On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > Nice mixture.
> I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > My 2c-more on this : > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > in a 'group' . > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
> Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > oneself to the group.
> > Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > is meant by responsibility.
> You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > way?
> > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > is the common underlying reality here?
> What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > It's still 'social'.
> See? More group.
> > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are right?
> Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this explicitly.
> > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no authenticity. > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> > I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > > group, or the network?
> The network. Links go out.
> If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > from within the confines of four walls?
> -- Stephen
> --
> Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
A relevant meaning is beginning to emerge out of this for me...
Look at the FLNW group. There are individuals in this group of course, and there are individuals associated with this group in various ways. But because of the Group, the individual connections are not as strong as they could have been. I have not had unrestricted conversations with some (possibly) many of the individuals because of my obligation to the group. As a result I am more likely to colour the sky blue than if individual connections were enabled and I saw that the sky was actually green, black, red or no colour at all...
Of course there are realities that impact on the ability to make individual connections, not least of all the hectic schedule I ambitiously coordinated, but I now realise that, just as with the need to continuously guard against power formations affecting open space, we should also actively enable individual connections to emerge. We must make time, and not think in and for a group all the time... something Stephen has been saying all along. It was my concern for the group that prevented me from hearing this.
Networked communications, where the prejudices and obligations of face to face communications are not so prevalent, allow for these connections. Instead of communicating in this email list (where we are conscious of the group) how different would our communications be if we communicated through our own blogs.
Anyway, I have to run.
On 9/28/06, Stanley Frielick <stan.friel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've had a look now at the video of the groups/network diagram. I > acknowledge that you want to avoid an absolutist interpretation and I > do have a better understanding of the subtleties and complexities. But > from an educational (rather philosophical) perspective the distinction > you draw between 'groups' and 'networks' sounds like the difference > between 'closed' and 'open' learning environments. So I guess for me > it's not than 'elearning 1.0 = groups (=bad?)' and 'elearning 2.0 = > networks (=good?)', but rather that (good) education has always been a > synthesis of both 'closed' and 'open' learning. The advent of the > internet doesn't necessarily change that. It does disrupt obsolete > practices, open up new spaces and approaches, flatten the hierarchies > - but it's not the panacea for all our educational ills.
> As novices we learn mainly by imitation - copying moves, styles, > gestures, ways of seeing and thinking - in 'closed' environments > (groups, classes, courses, multiple-choice questions, the 5-yr old > kindy class) and gradually acquire competence and mastery through a > dialectical movement into 'open' learning. The word 'education' > itself has its Latin roots in a dialectic of educere/educare - to > instill and to lead out. Like evolution, it's both a conserving and > subversive activity. Being free doesn't mean submitting to authority, > but rather having the authority and ability to respond - to know when, > why and how to act appropriately, to respect other cultures.... I > think Dreyfus is saying that this kind of intellectual, emotional and > spiritual maturity cannot be acquired *solely* on the internet.
> Yes you can learn to swim by being thrown into the deep end, but the > chances are that you might drown as well. Or as Bateson suggests, > it's the necessary tension between rigour (closed, groups) and > imagination (open, networks). Too much rigour leads to paralysis, too > much imagination and you go insane.... for me, it's about the > balance, synthesis, integration - healthy fruit salad ?.
> On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> > Stanley Frielick wrote:
> > > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > > Nice mixture.
> > I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > > My 2c-more on this : > > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity > > > in a 'group' . > > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > > > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
> > Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try > > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > > Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> > Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > > oneself to the group.
> > > Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> > This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what > > is meant by responsibility.
> > You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> > On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this > > way?
> > > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> > OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > > is the common underlying reality here?
> > What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > > We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > > > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > > > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > > It's still 'social'.
> > See? More group.
> > > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> > But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are > right?
> > Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this > explicitly.
> > > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no > authenticity. > > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> > > I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to > > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > > > group, or the network?
> > The network. Links go out.
> > If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > > from within the confines of four walls?
> > -- Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free Learning
in the debate about groups and networks we shd remember that all ecosystems aka networks contain groups...species etc i believe they are inter and intradependent. the communication and interaction may be different but to work as a whole they need connectivity..we are onthe samepage but why separate something which is part of a whole....something we do as soon as we define bron
On 9/27/06, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was walking through the mall today and 'bing' it went (I think).
> Picture this: > 20 x 5 year olds in their first kindy class. > Teacher splits them into groups of 4. > Teacher hands out standard art paper and standard crayons > Teacher asks kids to draw their house. > Sally sits, slightly confused, more than a bit frighten, peering at the > stark white. > Sally looks at Tommy - long time accustomed to learning in groups through > his 3 years of day care. > She see Tommy well on his way with blue sky, green grass, box house with 2 > windows and a tilted chimny, stick figure dad, mum, brother and dog. > Sally grabs the blue crayon and begins to colour in a blue sky as best she > can with cobalt crayon. > Learning in groups.
> Is this what you mean Stephen?
> On 9/27/06, Stephen Downes <step...@downes.ca> wrote:
> > Stanley Frielick wrote:
> > > I sometimes eat grapes and bananas (Ecuadorian mainly) at the same > > > time take a bite of banana and then pop a grape. > > > Nice mixture.
> > I see. So you choose 'banana'.
> > > My 2c-more on this : > > > One can only participate in a 'network' if one has formed an identity
> > > in a 'group' . > > > (What is the difference between groups and networks ? a network is > > > simply an aggregation of groups a metagroup, if you like.)
> > Hm. "What is the difference between groups and networks ?" You could try
> > addressing the entire graphic I just posted on that.
> > > Re Hegel like William Irwin Thompson, I think he should be inverted > > > so he can talk to Marx (or is it the other way round ? :)
> > Hegel predates Marx. Both saw individual freedom as subordinating > > oneself to the group.
> > > Point is you can advocate the ideal of absolute freedom in a > > > network, but education and authentic learning, like freedom, is > > > wrapped up with the notion of responsibility and accountability.
> > This is just a cliche. Where is the argument here? If you unwrap this, > > what you are saying is that freedom is fine, but you have to submit to > > authority. But this misrepresents both what is meant by freedom and what
> > is meant by responsibility.
> > You aren't thinking about this - you are just responding.
> > > The core of the issue is not whether education should be based on > > > groups or networks (a false dichotomy imho). It's about both.
> > On what basis do you call this a false dichotomy? On what basis do you > > call this a dichotomy, especially since in the video I explicitly reject > > the depiction of the drawing as setting up some sort of absolute in this
> > way?
> > > Not a 'middle way' - rather, a synthesis of the dialectic.
> > OK, let's suppose you are right in this. Synthesis works by finding the > > thesis and antithesis, and then through a process of analysis, > > identifying the common underlying reality expressed in the two. So what > > is the common underlying reality here?
> > What I get from you is just: more group. That's not synthesis. That's > > picking one side, and saying it's the middle ground.
> > > We learn to talk and walk in a group the family. Later the group > > > gets bigger school. Groups of groups. > > > And then society nations of groups of groups. It's all nested. > > > Then the internet comes and networks the groups together. So what. > > > It's still 'social'.
> > See? More group.
> > > Learning is a journey to identity in communities of practice (Wenger).
> > But suppose that's not right? Suppose people like Turkle and Boyd are > > right?
> > Listen to my audio today when I post it later, I address this > > explicitly.
> > > We need to learn in groups ('safe' learning environments as Teemu > > > suggests) because that's where we form our identities not in some > > > vast chaotic network where there is no responsibility, no > > authenticity. > > > See Herbert Dreyfus 'On the Internet' for the Kierkegaardian > > > dimensions of this, and the limitations of the 'network' for learning
> > > I'm all for the sublety of complexity but I have responsibilities to
> > > the political economy of learning in NZ . > > > So I ask who is the audience of this Google group is it just this > > > group, or the network?
> > The network. Links go out.
> > If it was just a group I wouldn't bother. Who wants to scan the horizon > > from within the confines of four walls?
> > -- Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada > > http://www.downes.ca ~ step...@downes.ca __\|/__ Free > > Learning
|
