[Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis and beyond
Jaray...@aol.com
Dave and Catherine agree that "analysis of what is going forward in
institutions" includes a
critque in terms of what is not going forward and needs to be... Both
practice and results need to be
transformed."
In my own replies to this theme, I have recently held up Ken Melchin's
BC initiative in June and Phil's SGME Halifax in July. Both of these
initiatives aim beyond "personal conversion" at work in the FS. They point to the
GEM world helping the wider world going beyond mere analyses to effective
social change. Many activists such as Greenpeace are helping shape the
world's consciousness toward more responsibility.
Several times BL upheld the work ("the example") of Gibson Winter, the
social ethicist. Both Melchin and I took Winter as our point of departurne
to GEM studies. Winter castigated the churches for having abandoned their
social responsibility to the "metropolis", to the larger world. Winter long
taught in Chicago. Perhaps he had caught wind of the social experiments
there that culminated in an Obama--as well as the corruption of Illinois
politics exemplified in ex gov. "Blag.."
Fortunately, some in the GEM world are consciously moving toward the
"next step" which includes analyses of what is going forward in institutions
(in a first phase) and moving BEYOND mere analyses in the second phase to
the type of "house-cleaning" (in-and-out of the GEM world) Phil, Catherine
and others have been urging.
In a way, GEM studies involve not only use of the head but of the
hands, of the type of organizational skills developed by ethical "activists"
and "transcultural-and-pedagoical savvy" pioneers such as Paulo Freire and
Leonardo Boff. But here is where a divide may occur for many Western GEM
students are far from ready for the latter types of approaches,
John
Maxim Faust
Given a question to pursue, I first tend to shrink my attention to little
details, to get the obvious, the elemental on the table. They are drawn from
the positive terms of the question. In this way, a question is
sometimes found silly, sometimes found worth the next step forward.
So it was when I came to MiT's *collaboration* as the means of implementing
the FS's. BL had already learned that the fragile complexities of any kind
of human order were strengthened by divvying up its labors. I've found that
there are university sites today where the dynamics of collaboration is
studied and taught; and I've found businesses who want personnel who know
how to produce collaboratively. So, there are small forests of data on what
people are doing when they are working collaboratively.
If I had a grant, I would go "out there" and consolidate accepted
understandings and practices of collaboration concretized according to
various products and services. I would also want to know (very important) in
what settings collaboration is not practiced, and why? Then, with such a
picturesque rendering of collaborative work (I bet I would find good grounds
to distinguish cooperative work) I would hunt down the nearest nest of
Lonerganians and put to them this question: What in this picture of
collaboration can/cannot functional specialization do?
Has such been done? Is such too primitive to bother about?
Max
_______________________________________________
You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
Loner...@skipperweb.org
Archives on skipperweb:
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, Texas
For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list, Eureka:
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
David Coghlan
I've been part of an exciting venture that produced a book called The Handbook
of Collaborative Management Research (ed. Shani and others) Sage, 2008. It both
outlines theory and cases of researchers and practitioners collaborating to
produce knowledge for both communities.
David
Catherine B. King
Yes--exactly. This is what I send my students in education out there to do
for their action research projects. First, get out there and find out
what's going on. And there's a bunch going on in collaboration as such, as
you say. I think it's a corrective from the effects of the positivism from
past centuries going forward as we speak. On the other hand, the correction
is not commonly philosophical, that I can see anyway. Or if it is so, it's
still polymorphic and shares its intellectual space with a variety of
counter-positions.
That being said, and it's not to excuse inaction,, however, the difference
with collaborating about the functional specialties is threefold (at least):
First, it's dependent on a fairly large development of specific theoretical
understanding, e.g., in Insight, Method, etc.
Second, understanding the import and power of the FS is dependent on a
variety of internal developments that are not what we often mean by
"knowledge" (as objectifying something and then understanding something
about it), but what are commonly known here as "conversions," as it turns
out, an unfortunate term for a technical field. In education, this internal
movement in other-than-philosophical arenas is referred to as "remote" as
distinct from proximate, the "hidden curriculum," or even in the worst
rendition of it so far: "non-cognitive learning" where they are trying to
connect it with ROI (return on investment) (arrgghhh).
In a more descriptive mode in our field, however, it's dependent on a
modicum of (1) philosophical development and (2) philosophical correctives.
Third, these two above are dependent on a certain openness to one's own,
again, development and corrective. That alone is a tall order, in my
experience.
In BL's terms, however, to begin collaborating about the functional
specialties, we are coming from latent and problematic to explicit
metaphysics (or more generally, philosophy)--an issue of
philosophical-critical self-reflection. In Piscitelli's terms (if I may),
it's not rhetorical conversion (recognizing that truth comes [from above]
through language, e.g., the writer or poet) but philosophical
conversion--the philosophical/theoretical self-reflection of it
[from-below], and the differentiated and critical synthesis of (1) the
operations with (2) a reflective appropriation of them--translated onto the
level of groups, institutions, and generaly to that of trans-cultural-ity.
So collaboration is one thing, and an aspect of any field or subject; and FS
collaboration, though also an aspect of the field/subject of philosophy
and/or theology, is quite another?
Regards,
Catherine
Maxim Faust
You say "both communities" meaning "managers" and "researchers", yes?
Collaboration among managers..., among researchers.... Managers have a
"front line" to manage... a front line of co-operations?
In your text, I would expect to find descriptions of the
differentiated "labors" of the collaborations. Have you
spotted "methodological" divisions of labor?
Do you know of any "communities" that would eschew collaboration as a means
to sustain itself? If I visited faculties of scholars studying (fields) and
teaching (subjects) english language "literatures", and put to each the
question, "Does collaboration happen here?", what do you suspect would be
the majority reply? If it is "No", then the important question follows: "Why
not?" I think many lonerganians want to hear that sort of answer.
Will you present the books "findings" to a lonergan gathering?
Max
Maxim Faust
I would just like to focus on the following from your post:
> "This is what I send my students in education out there to do for their
> action research projects. First, get out there and find out what's going
> on. And there's a bunch going on in collaboration as such, as you say."
>
Benton's most recent book on language studies contains an invaluable
presentation of data collected by grade 12 students! I hope you manage to
gather and organize the results of the work you indicate is being done.
Catherine B. King
Not as much as I would like, actually. I think one thing it does, however,
is help to loosen the bonds of all sorts of provincialism (including of
expression) and, with technology as it is now, (in my view) it tends to open
the gates to more flow between meaning and expression.
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maxim Faust" <maxim...@gmail.com>
To: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in
institutions:analysisandbeyond
David Coghlan
Collaborative research seeks to build communities of inquiry from among
communities of practice and produce knowledge that is useful to the
practitioner community and meets the requirements of scholarship etc for the
community of scholars.
I've not brought any of that work to the Lonergan community (as yet!).
Joe F
I wonder how can philosophy become a science. I have a gem of a book
by Sartre, Being and Nothingness. It's not that I understand it. But I
like the voice in it. Philosophy gave Sartre the platform with which
to do philosophy in his own voice- to express himself. Do you think
that book could have been produced if he were scientific? Could Don
Herbert or Edward Teller have written such a book? Science and
philosophy I think overlap in places but they should be distinguished.
I must risk asking, at the risk of revealing myself to be a
philistine, in what sense can philosophy be a science? And then there
is something called the 'comfort of philosophy'. Does that age old
concept go out the window when philosophy becomes a science? For there
to be a meaningful philosophy of science philosophy must in some sense
stand outside science, spiritually, essentially.
Joe F
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "David W Oyler" <david....@aexp.com>
> To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:08:00 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] FS and the Conversions (Foundations)
> Hi Catherine -
>
> As long as "analysis of what is going forward in institutions" includes a
> critque in terms of what is not going forward and needs to, we are on the
> same page on this point. Both practice and results need to be
> transformed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
> 10/13/2009 02:02 PM
> Please respond to
> "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
>
>
> To
> David W Oyler/AMER/TRS/AEXP@AMEX
> cc
> <loner...@skipperweb.org>
> Subject
> Re: [Lonergan_l] FS and the Conversions (Foundations)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello David:
>
> No--of course they are not methodical. I think Lonergan's exploration of
> interpretation, expression, and mythmaking in Insight is a "lite" version
> of what can come to us in an overplay of meaning through the power of
> non-methodical manifestations from that/those aspects of the FS, e.g.,
> art, symbol, human discourse and actions, etc. (As annoying and
> anti-theoretical as Nicholas is, he has this truth embedded in his
> otherwise polemical and passive-aggressive excursions.)
>
> However, (if I understand what you are saying), the analysis of what is
> going forward in institutions in terms of the theory (in this case, the
> FS) would be a step towards a science--as you are suggesting
> it--transforming the present philosophical "cacophony" into a relatively
> stable basic understanding. I think the more any of us understands
> Lonergan's work, the more we realize that this is both needed and on the
> emergent-docket--if we don't annihilate ourselves first.
>
> The transformation of the field of philosophy over time, however, can come
> and is coming from many venues; but at least from the power embedded in
> the methodical explanation of what is already going forward in ordered
> groups (as a very general term, e.g., universities) in terms of the theory
> and by those who have a relative grasp of explicit metaphysics.
>
> I appreciate the discussion,
>
> Catherine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David W Oyler
> To: Catherine B. King
> Cc: loner...@skipperweb.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] FS and the Conversions (Foundations)
>
>
> Hi Catherine -
>
> Perhaps the following distinctions would be helpful. We can consider
> operations as operative, as objectified and as methodical. I grant that
> the operations laid out in MIT are operative. They also are objectified,
> but in many different ways. Even when objectified correctly, however,
> they are not necessarily methodical. So, yes, I can do a review of
> philosophy and find research, interpretation, history, dialectic, etc but
> they are performed at various degrees of explicitness and are not
> performed in the methodical way proposed by Lonergan. So if I were to
> develop a "Method in Philosophy" I certainly would point to present
> practice in support of distinguishing what the basic specializations
> should be, but I could not point to present practice, except in a negative
> way, to show how they need to be interrelated operatively in an
> effectively methodical way. Some postive examples may be found, but they
> would be partial at best. I think that is the easy part. The unfortunate
> thing is that everyone may agree that we can divide the work up this way
> and then they all go off on their merry way and we are left with a
> slightly transformed cacaphony. The second requirement is the shift into
> science where there is a socially confirmed paradigm correlated with a
> socially validated method (I am not being completely rigorous here in the
> use of the term paradigm). So philosophy today is in some instances
> scientific, but it is not yet a science. Laying out a method in
> philosophy will not make it a science. Effectively implementing the
> method will raise the probabilities of it becoming a science. This
> requires the emergence of a set of collaborative practitioners. Since
> method and "paradigm" overlap more in philosophy than in any other
> discipline, acceptance of the method goes a longer way in constituting the
> paradigm than anywhere else but social acceptance is required (ultimately
> across philosophy). Even with initial social acceptance and something
> that approaches common practices (which will be misunderstood in today's
> climate as a "school"), progressive iterations will be needed to get it
> to "wobble into a semi-stable orbit" of cumulative and progressive
> results.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
> American Express made the following annotations on Tue Oct 13 2009
> 14:36:48
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient
> and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the
> information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
> e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
> attachments. Thank you." American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant
> le Tue Oct 13 2009 14:36:48 Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il
> contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer
> des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le
> destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou
> distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous
> avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par
> courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes.
> Merci.
> ******************************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> American Express made the following annotations on Tue Oct 13 2009 16:08:02
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
>
> American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue Oct 13 2009 16:08:02
>
> Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.
>
> ******************************************************************************
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine B. King
So "collaborative research" is not just a common term, but it's come to be a
technical term in the science of "action research"?
For those who aren't familiar with the terms, "action research" is a
relatively new field (correct me if I am wrong here, David), that, in fact,
emerges clearly from what Lonergan means by "the basic structure."
For instance, I teach a "short" class where a brief (relatively) action
research project is required by my teachers. Briefly, the teacher
recognizes an actual persistent problem in her teaching experience; and then
follows professionally-established procedures to explore the problem
further, collaborate with peers, administration, etc., formally consult the
current and past literature in the relevant fields that inform (1) the
problem and (2) the potential remedy or applications of some kind, then
sets out a formal plan for qualitative change; and then "makes it happen."
The basic structure: Problem
question/research-development/planning/carrying-out the plan. Or, What is
it/good/bad; is it so?; what should I/we do? etc., Should I/we do it? Doing
it. Reflecting on what we did. Repeat the process.
It's a formalization and field development of reflectively established,
qualitative change that, in institutions, comes "from the bottom up" and can
be applied in any field insofar as it's dynamic and has some modicum of
openness in the persons involved.
Regards,
Catherine
Sally McShane
a few points about "action-structure". There has been, in the
past decades, a fair amount of confusion in Lonergan circles about the
dynamics of action. This is due, to some extent, to the compact version of
the transcendentals that Lonergan introduces in MIT on page 53. There he is
in fact stressing the What-to-do question, but the compacting is
unfortunate. I deal with that problem of compacting in Appendix A of
Phenomenology and Logic, and the two diagrams there give the dynamics of it
in simple form. One goes from knowledge of a state of affairs, to the
what-to-do question - where regularly - in action-research situations or
conflict resolution situations [recall the Melchin work] creativity is
required.
I mentioned one reason for the muddles, but there are the other
reasons: Lonergan was rushed, in the Summer of 1953, and forced to compact
stuff in chapter 18 [but note that the analysis of belief in chapter 20
help]. What he was compacting was one of the most powerful bits of
self-attention in Thomas, one that Lonergan respected enough to count the
bits "in the Prima secundae there are sixty three articles ...." (Grace and
Freedom, p. 94): the sixty three articles run from q. 6 to q.17. They
brilliantly tip-toe through 12 steps. I normally use a "menu exercise" to
get student through these steps in an elementary fashion. From the time a
menu is accepted from a waiter to its return to the waiter after a few
minutes with the claim "I'll have Chicken Kiev" or whatever, the person has
gone through the full set. But it is tricky work: e.g. Thomas distinguises
consent from choice. One consents to, say, three entrees [ all this
involving imagination, savouring, etc] but choice shifts one to "Yes, this
one".... and one goes on to a new level of savoring {fruitio} in handing
back the menu with that verbal florish. [In the old English trans Gilbey
has an appendix on the topic of the 12 steps that is slightly muddled .....
there are two sets of articles of Crowe related to the topic]
Thomas treatment is a dense 50+ page thing, massively diffiicult
in its refinements - and: note refinements regarding feelings.
There are other problems here, e.g. regarding Lonergan's
semi-mature congitional perspective in 1939-41, but that is tricky scholarly
work, not yet seriously tackled. Also, of course there is the sublation of
the problem into the cycle of 8-specialties, but let's leave that for the
moment.
Phil
Catherine B. King
Of course, it's a matter of differentiation--or not--and then well-developed
theoretical differentiation. I doubt anyone here fails to appreciate
Lonergan's or Aquinas' regard for nuance in either venue.
On the other hand, we (you and me, and McGiver McGee) must recognize
legitimate steps forward in the world; in this case in institutional
analysis, where the positive/creative, differentiative, self-reflective, and
empirically-established AND generating forces are so obviously grounded in
(at least) the part of polymorphism that is authentic in both persons and
institutions.
Such recognition--and even celebration--is part of the bridging-back, as it
were, from legitimate theory (as we know it to be) to legitimate and truly
authentic movements in cultures both east and west and in-between. We love
the ivory tower, Phil, and can keep one foot firmly stationed there--as your
warning suggests; but spending our lives there with both feet makes us pale,
as it were--and as you are so clear to say, and to quote Lonergan, in your
other notes--it truncates the process.
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally McShane" <smcs...@shaw.ca>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>; "David Coghlan"
<dcog...@tcd.ie>
Cc: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis
Sally McShane
you point to complications but I am talking
about elementary behaviour. The car has a flat. One cops on and then goes to
possible ways of handling ... so, from fact to what to-do. [within that
movement there is what Crowe points to, re complacency and concern, but
that is a refinement!] More creative illustrations relate to, say, planning
a holiday or a meal. But the point is that there is a transcendental
operation which I name "be adventurous" or "be foresightful" or whatever...
just "get a plan" ....before one is faces being responsible. This is the
simple empirical zone that seems missed in followers of the MIT "4".
Catherine B. King
Okay. What you are saying, however, is still within the general
thrust/quest of "What/who, etc., is it?" or, it's still an exploration of
and openness to meaning as distinguished from the movement towards
reasonable closure/truth. Its speculative.
Of course, that arena of meaning exploration is vast. For instance, the
artist is still within this same structure, though no one (that I know of)
is missing art as human exploration of meaning.
I think the difference here may be in the theoretical articulation of (1) a
directive or precept--as is "be intelligent," etc. and (2) a set of
questions, e.g., What is it? etc. However, the precepts (not necessarily
concepts) are rooted in the prior quests and their theoretical formulation.
In the operations of the conscious structure (depicted as questing), your
different formulation of "being adventurous, being foresightful," etc.)
speaks to a differentiation of mind that regards our not "jumping to
judgment" (is it so) if we need not do so; but to be open to and aggressive
after new meaning, e.g., "be adventurous." Or "be adventurous," etc.)
means to entertain the questioning for meaning before passing judgment--not
to close one's mind--or to remain in the exploratory mode longer and with
more aggression towards having insights--however you want to say that.
In terms of the basic quests (What is it, etc.) such language--as
precepts--is not a new function or issue of consciousness, but is rather a
different set of concepts that depict the precept that addresses the quest
for meaning: "be intelligent and attentive."
Best,
Catherine
---- Original Message -----
From: "Sally McShane" <smcs...@shaw.ca>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
Cc: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis
Doug Mounce
Dear All, when I think of method, I like to separate data collection from
interpreted meaning and give each level a precept. I think Adrial's
presentation of Vertin's work suggests a more intimate link where the two
are joined more than is described by a possible movement, but there is an
application in measurement theory and also the current trend in
observational research that recommends some distance. regards, Doug
Catherine B. King
Yes--good idea. However, any further differentiations, such as yours, are
rooted in the basic structure (and the theory of it), which emerges
existentially as a set of quests and only later as a set of differentiated
and differentiating precepts. The precepts are differentiated and rest on
the quests as discoverable in the person (me and you). Also, your
distinction mirrors the functional specializations--research (collection of
data, etc.) and interpretation, etc. A quest for meaning as distinguished
from the truth of it, or further, from our considerations about what we
should/will do, is not changed by talking about data collection or
interpretation. Those are still, generally, about the quest for meaning.
Catherine
Phil McShane
we have been round this track before of
course and agreed to differ!
But what you write here is very complex. I am pointing to the simple
situation of BUMP! .... my tire is flat [a spontaneous judgment [technically
followed by velle simpliciter in Thomas and Crowe, which switches
circumstntially to a velle finem which is not free: this is the complex
stuff dealth with by Thoma, Crowe, Lonergan]. Then there is the modally
different what-question, What-to-do: with a range of possibilities emerging,
creative or not ..... I might wait for help, call a cab, phone AA, fix it
myself. Which am I to do?, this one that one ...... and on the judgment of
the value of ...
Does this make sense? The Webstie book Wealth of Self [Chapter 6] gives
elementary illustrations.
Incidentally, [connecting with Doug] Vertin does not have this clear in his
work, and Adrial follows in that tradition.
It is certainly a worthwhile topic, central and simple.
Doug Mounce
That's right, that's what I think Adrial meant. I meant the conscious
separation choosing *not* to infer meaning or make ideas (which some call
the ideal inductive approach although in modern application induction to
another level is not assumed,) but we all understand that most research
has always taken the meaning first and collected the evidence afterwards.
Holmes and Watson are lying on a field at night.
Holmes: look up Watson, what do you see?
Watson: I see the stars in all their glory, Holmes, aligned with my
imagination in constellation, and truly representing that this is a
beautiful night without rain or cloud.
Holmes: You miss the point Watson, someone has stolen our tent!
Catherine B. King
Of course, it's complex. But there is the structure operative already in
the basic awareness of what a "bump" might be, in the import of paying
attention to it, and in our judgments that "it's a bump where a bump means
trouble."
The spontaneity that you speak of doesn't come out of the air, but is the
spontaneous recall (what I refer to as resonance) of "what" a bump might
mean while riding in a car or, in a different situation, being shot at in a
war, or again, when flying a plane, or seeing your child fall from the chair
onto a hard floor or onto a soft rug. The sound is the basic
sense-reception, but **what it means** is spontaneously informed by all of
the "what" questions and insights that went before THIS bump occurred and
that consist of the meaning that has been laid down for us through our
intelligent operations throughout our lives. New WHAT's follow, of
course--which, in my experience, are easier to find and to relate to the
theory as a differentiated structure when trying to help students
self-discover.
It seems to me we are talking about the same thing in different language?
Regards,
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil McShane" <pmcs...@shaw.ca>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
Cc: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis
Phil McShane
yes, the habitual context is there. So, a knock on the door
moves up normally to judgment [ but still may include other what-questions,
like, ...maybe a banging branch? ....] .... but eventually there emerges a
'yes'. THEN the what questions occurs in the other mode, What-to-do. A
difficulty with the deeper question re WHAT is its root reach is as
described on page 665 of Insight: "what, then, is being?" ... that root
sense is lurking in the MIT 53 version of the transcendentals. In class
one needs to tackle the elementary sense first, recovering in oneself -
class-selves - the experiential struggle of Aristotle, Nemesius, John of
Damascus, Thomas and Lonergan. So .e.g. there is the strategy of
self-reading one's way through chapter 9 of Insight - no metaphysical or
epistemological distractions! My Wealth of Self, chapter 2. Then one tackles
the experiential basis of chapter 18 of Insight ... and here too one can
dodge epistemology. So one gets those two diagrams of Appendix A,
elementarily presented in Wealth of Self pp. 15 and 48. Were I teaching that
stuff this month I might focus on a knocking sound on Hallowe'en: so, yes,
they get to the answer, "Yes, A knock on the door" but spontaneity is
blocked because of envisaged insistent kids or bad people ... so other
possibilities emerge apart from 'opening the door' .... avoid the windows,
stop crunching nuts, get down on the floor,.... the students identify
themselves in the layered to-do diagram. The key thing is the modal
distinction that relates to the two types of possible: the possibles that
are actual, and the possibles that are, perhaps, to be. "Perhaps": we are
in that unhappy zone of British philosophy, "is and ought" stuff.
But are we trecking and tracking in the same direction?
Catherine B. King
I think we are both talking about the same thing--it sounds like you keep
telling me what I already know. But H.L. Sullivan has a great rendition of
the same background, only in different language and with only a relatively
brief excursion (so far) into metaphysics and epistemology.
But I must be missing your point in this conversation? I was responding to
your note and saying:
(1) that the polymorphism of mind includes what is authentic and creative
about consciousness, and even of our views of it; and that authenticity can
and does become manifest in a culture as differentiation becomes clearer and
clearer. We can recognize authentic movements in all forms of cultural
instances. In our case, it's not even polymorphism of mind but is rather
general and different-from-Lonergan, and from philosophical, field
academics, e.g., D. Coghlan's wonderful work in action research where he
grounds it in what he refers to as "first person practice" based on a
well-articulated BL view of authenticity on the part of the researcher. (In
my own language, I call what he has done "personal foundational review"
where his view is reflectively articulated to present to a field as a
potential for "institutional foundational review.")
(2) that the conceptualization of precepts, directives, or guiding ideas
(transcendental precepts) as such rests on the prior emergence of and
self-verification of the different quests (as distinct from questions that
are already individual/conceptual). As a part if a general theorem pointing
to our experience of consciousness as raising questions (questing), the What
is it? quest is a theoretical expression the wondering experience when we
search for meaning--however you want to refer to that, e.g., explore, etc.
(3) In the last part of your note, you refer to the is-ought distinction, or
(I presume) in BL's work the difference between the is/is not insight and
the practical insight about what we will do, etc. If you remember, you
pointed me in that direction back in circa 1999 when I first sent you a
draft of my work. It's been ten years since that pointing. As you have, I
can also refer you to several chapters in my own work on this distinction,
but you probably don't need it. :o)
Regards,
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil McShane" <pmcs...@shaw.ca>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
Cc: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis
Phil McShane
yes, we have trecked round this a good bit,
and you have a great deal to add re the complexities .... I think my concern
is more with the missing of the what-to-do question's dynamic both at the
elementary level - presented in the two diagrams AND - our concern at the
moment - in the zone that is IMPLEMENTATION. Could there be a connection
between the way Lonergan put the transcendentals with the failure of the
school to focus on implementation as a component in a full meta-viewpoint?
But back to elements: I have heard endless Lonergan lectures on the
transcendentals which seem to skip the what-to-do question ... go magically
from fact to value. Where, I have occasionally and mischievously asked, does
planning fit in?!
Onwards then with planning and implementation ... and scheming, sgeme-ing!
Catherine B. King
Yes--it's complex and overlapping. And the other point (besides the
intricacies of the movement from is-to-ought-to-act) is that the good-bad
complex of meaning, though in its particularity is highly develomental and
diverse, is a part of the whole movement from start to finish--it's not only
the governing order of "be responsible, or of "what should-ought I say-do"
that leads to decisions and acts--or that transforms from oughts to is's.
The good-bad is also an intrinsic part of the what-and-so questioning
complex. Even if we overtly isolate this complex from what we mean by
What-meaning (e.g., a mountain is a mountain and not yet a good or bad
mountain), the good-bad complex has still informed our orientation, our
remote development, our cultural meaning, and the whole thrust of direction
of interest in our history that led up to our asking such questions alone or
as a part of a field of study. In brief, and though the good-bad complex is
developmental for all, that complex cannot be completely separated from any
of our what-so type questions--on principle. Trying to translate the basic
structure into a refined and clear pedagogy brought me to such questions
that HAD to be dealth with in the concrete.
Also, you ponder: "Could there be a connection between the way Lonergan put
the transcendentals with the failure of the
school to focus on implementation as a component in a full meta-viewpoint?"
Do you mean the schools that are influenced by Lonergan's work? Please tell
me--Where the heck are those?
But I don't think so. I think at present, and among the many problems that
the University has now, the philosophical issue/problem rests in what
Lonergan refers to as "problematic metaphysics," where I assume he means
that the same problematic flows into both epistemology and cognitional
theory--or more generally, philosophical orientation. But that doesn't
keep the pendulum of change from its longer arch that is the mysterious
movement towards self-correction in our concrete activities? In my view,
and though many good nuances have been forwarded, it's not Lonergan's work
or its articulation but rather US who have to bring it to fruition--to
implement it.
Also, the university is a rightly-distinct (in my view) institution that
**prepares** students to either continue studying and contributing to
research, etc., and/or to implement in the sense of applications. It's
failures are not, as I see it, in implementation, but in the philosophical
development, self-correction, and meta-integration, that is so sorely
needed.
But for implementation, this is one reason I am so interested and excited
about David Coghlan's movement in action research and the way he brings
different language to his field transposing Lonergan's meaning and
comparing/contrasting it with others in his and related fields. (See his
article from last year.) Action research is what people do when they have
left the University--to implement in terms of real-live problems. Through
action research and "collaborative communities" the research and
theory-development at the University (and the multitude of publications of
it) is brought into dialogue with real-live problems in institutions through
foundational work, like David's, and with and through literature reviews.
For instance, my K-12 teachers, who have been known to stand around and
wring-their hands while they complain about problems, through the methods of
action research, can know how to initiate and DO something about the
problems they experience--they can "BE" actively responsible and loving
through it.
Also, do you see in some way that "be responsible" and "be loving" do not
speak to implementation?
Regards,
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil McShane" <pmcs...@shaw.ca>
To: "Catherine B. King" <cb....@verizon.net>
Cc: <loner...@skipperweb.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] what is going forward in institutions:analysis
Sally McShane
Dear Catherine [and David and all],
thank you for the lengthy and good answer. You range over a wide set of
problems. Can I find a way towards our helpful forward motion? A possible
way is to split my chat in three [a] the Coghlan action research and other
related bents; [b] the "school" problem ... a jargon problem ,but it leads
to deeper issues; [c] the elementary basic diagrams of Appendix A,
Phenomenology and Logic.
[a] no disagreement here .we desperately need to move forward this way, and
somehow push for a solid front. Darlene O'Leary has recently moved towards
the formation of some integral front of "responsible citizenship" .... we
will try to pull this stuff loosely together with the support of the SGEME
group, now heading for 8o members. So, yes, "interesting and exciting. David
Coghlan's movement.... " "sorely needed" stuff, as you say. AND oh yes, US
.... we are both together on this US thing ... I am really tired of people
saying "Lonergan says" .... WE have to SAY and DO.... and I relate this to
Ortega y Gasset's "Mission of the University", which I would say was a great
influence on the drive of Insight. There is lots more to be brought forth
here, but perhaps we have both said enough to help US ALL share the bent
towards pragmatic change.
[b] and this is in continuity, but I would like also to reach towards future
thinking of the deeper issues.
First, my "school" thing... I was using the word in the sense that Lonergan
uses it in Phenomenology and Logic, and indeed echoing his mood there re
decadent schools. [see the index there, under Schools]. Implementation was
at the heart of his life's work and hopes. I am tempted to send you his long
sad appealing letter of 1935, but it will appear in the Biography in the
Spring. That letter makes even sadder the fact that "implementation" somehow
didn't catch people's attention .... evident e.g. from the index-absence of
it in the various languages and editions of INSIGHT, but also from present
rather academic goings-on. So, again, back to [a] and US, taking a Position
on changing history.
Now: the deeper issues thing, which is in fact related to the "Lonergan
school" problem.
Your first long paragraph points to these issues, and there is no way we can
go on moving round them here .... they are huge. What I would hope is that
those sharing our ramblings would take note of these fundamental issues and
face them in the decades ahead. Yes, as you say, "the good-bad complex of
meaning" ... is there "from start to finish" ... and the "complex cannot be
completely separated from any of our what-so questions - in principle". Very
deep stuff .... to be left to later generations to sort out.
You touch here on problems associated with Aquinas' "Qualis unusquisque est,
talis finis ei videtur": so as anyone is, so does the end appear to them".
That problem relates to the primitive velle finem, which is not free .....
it is the shift from serenity to concern that is discerned by Thomas in the
first 3 of his 12-step analysis of minding. It relates too to Lonergan's
later talk of a new notion of value - about which "the school" has been
bandying in pretty light weight fashion, as it has with the meaning of
feelings. This is where I think of your talk of US and of nominal goings-on.
Many people simply are not getting into their psychic skin when they read
e.g. Method chapter 2, sections 3 and 4, about value. How does one read
"judgment of value"? It seems to me that many read mainly the words, and are
not focused on their inner dynamic, that refined procession of desire that
echoes the processional dynamics of the Trinity. [I think of Contra
Gentiles, 4: 11]. AND I do not think we are ready for this work yet... it is
to be a labour of the third stage of meaning. So let US struggle with it
messily yet ... hand it on as a root searching that is to lift global
meaning in millennia to come!
[c] so that is a context of my "simple" diagrams ... you will note in Wealth
Chapter 6 that the diagram of doing has an extra line about it not in
Appendix A .... hinting at the neurochemistry of feeling [which, amazingly,
Aquinas was tuned to] and also to the Jungian histo-stuff : "it wills with
that order's dynamic joy and zeal" {Insight, 722, last line}, but can be
bent out of sorts in various strange ways touched on in chapter 6 of
Insight. But I wont go on about that simple presentation .... it simply
emphasizes that, when we get the facts reasonably straight, we have to bend
our molecules, in strenuous fantasy, to envisage the future, short-term and
long-term ... and there we are, back at your project of short and long
journeying.
Enough for the moment; Let us push on towards the vaious implementations!
David W Oyler
There is a real issue that can be glossed over in contrasting the ivory
tower versus common sense that is different from the discussions of
general bias, group bias, etc or theoretical versus practical. The issue
is sustainability. Having worked with all levels and multiple areas of
large financial services companies and banks in both technologies and the
business over the past 30 years I have seen a number of strategic
initiatives come and go; some successful, some multi-million dollar
failures. I also have fought the internal wars to introduce project
management during the eighties and nineties to groups that did not think
it was practical as well as the quality contol methodology, Six Sigma. To
make a long story short, if you are not committed to the whole process and
willing to work through the unforeseen complexities of implementation, the
initative may not get completed and, if completed, it will not survive. It
will erode to the point where it will be ignored, especially if it is
somewhat complex or difficult. I can point to two instances where I
work today. Six Sigma was only partially implemented and has now been so
watered down as to be vitually useless. The second is that due to a
reorganization we have slid backwards in our project management
methodology since there is not the same understanding among upper
management regarding what effective project management is. To paraphrase
Steve Jobs, in the first stage of a project it can seem fairly easy and
straightforward. In the middle stage it becomes very difficult and may
seem impossible. And then it becomes "simple" again. There is no way to
avoid the middle stage - problematics - and spontaneous intelligence is
rarely up to the task. We may find affinities, etc with other thinkers,
schools, methodologies, but without the full explicit context, they remain
that, bits and pieces of quasi-positive commonality.
Dave
American Express made the following annotations on Mon Nov 02 2009 14:07:54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Mon Nov 02 2009 14:07:54