Re: Curriculum Proposal LO3473

John Woods (jwoods@execpc.com)
Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:50:01 -0500 (CDT)

Replying to LO3449 --

>Below is what I'd like you to critique. In 8 or 9 point type, it'll fit
>on a single page. Every comment will be much appreciated.

OK. Here is my response/critique:

Preface: I believe that everyone sees the world holistically (even if
they are unconscious of it). However, it is a very personal holistic view
that often (usually) does not take into account that my holistic view is
different from yours and vice versa. To the degree that anything makes
sense to anyone, it is because we have each have worked out a sense of the
order of things in relation to other things and in relation to ourselves.
We do not need to start thinking in terms of systems, that is what we do.
We just need to become aware of this and understand the implications. For
most there is an unconsciousness of this. Thus they make judgments and
take actions that often bring them to grief. In other words, we suffer
the consequences of our misunderstanding of ourselves in relation to the
world of which we are intimately and inextricably a part. (Of course,
we'll never really understand it all, so there will always be
consequences, and thus always chances to learn.) > > THE GENERAL EDUCATION
CURRICULUM > >1. The purpose of general education is to expand
understanding of >reality. The central question is, "What's going on
here?"

The purpose of education is to help us understand ourselves in relation to
the world we are part of and help create by our actions. Every discipline
is an example of how we can categorize and understand the world in
relation to ourselves. We never explain the world, we only explain how we
understand the world, which is, quite literally, a function of how our
brains work. So what we always explore is some manifestation of our
processes of thought and understanding. And the principles that govern how
we think also govern the principles that we project onto the disciplines
we have created to explain the world to ourselves. Thus, every discipline
is a metaphor for every other and ultimately a metaphor for ourselves. I
would love for this to be the foundation of education. It is the most
realistic approach as far as I am concerned. Finally, to the degree that
our understanding accurately reflects what's going on in nature, this
means that our thought processes are simply another manifestation of
nature at work (which I think they are)--meaning, for me, that human
nature is the human form of nature. > >2. Reality presents itself to us
whole, but the educational establishment >considers it too vast and too
complex to study holistically. It has been >"broken apart" into various
specialized studies such as biology, >psychology, chemistry, political
science, physics, anthropology, etc..

I agree that we experience the world as a whole, and then we abstract our
experience in terms of thoughts and categories to deal with and understand
our experience. There is no problem with dividing the world into
categories. It is perfectly natural to do this, and it is very useful as
well. However, the problem comes from our believing that these categories
are somehow independent of we who have created them. Referring to 1 above,
I would say continue to categorize, but realize that these categories are
just useful metaphors to help us adapt to and create our world.

>3. The conceptual frameworks of these specialized fields cannot be meshed
>so as to model reality holistically. No current
>approachinterdisciplinary, theme, topic, social problem, etc.even makes
>an attempt to provide students with a comprehensive, integrated conceptual
>framework for the holistic study of reality. Individually and
>collectively, the traditional disciplines and other current approaches:
>
> Ignore vast areas of extremely important knowledge
> Fail to show students the systemic, integrated nature of reality
> Disregard basic principles of learning
> Lack universal, overarching goals with which instruction connects
> Fail to disclose the subjective nature of knowing
> Are bulky, time-consuming and inefficient
> Are static, with no built-in mechanisms to adapt the curriculum to change
> Emphasize passive information absorption rather than information
>generation
> Are, in varying degrees, irrelevant to and remote from life as it's lived
> Provide no criteria for determining relative content significance
> Sell the human potential for understanding and intellectual growth very
>short

I would not go this far. The division of experience into many categories
has use, and again, it is natural for us to do this (or we wouldn't be
doing it). The problem is the objectification of knowledge as if biology,
chemistry, sociology and so on existed separate from us. These categories
are helpful when understood in human terms. They help us gain insight
into ourselves and what we are capable of. The problem comes because we
don't see that we have created them and that they are projections of
ourselves. If I can relate engineering to English lit to psychology to
Indian mysticism to modern physics to my own powers of ratiocination, well
wow! How can I not be turned on to learning all this stuff. I am really
learning about myself and what I'm capable of. The principles of all these
subjects are the same--they all explore processes and relationships in
various contexts because that's what understanding, as a process itself,
is about (I believe). Because traditional education does not provide this
more realistic basis of learning, students get turned off. But I can
guarantee you that they will get turned on when they can relate this
knowledge to themselves and to the basic principles of thought and
understanding. And since it all emerges from within us, why not
acknowledge that and build our education on it. The answer seems to be
that in traditional educational circles, especially higher education,
there is no payoff right now for this approach in the short term. That is
a pity.

>4. Holistic study, by its very definition, requires the use of a SINGLE
>conceptual framework encompassing all knowledge. (This framework will
>include, but not be limited to, the conceptual frameworks of the academic
>disciplines.)

This single framework is what I have been discussing so far, so I agree
with you.

>5. Such a framework need not be invented. It already exists, is in
>constant use, and is familiar to all, even small children. However, its
>very familiarity makes it difficult to recognize, and, if recognized, to
>appreciate its inherent sophistication.

That's true. The framework is, for me, processes and relationships
(another way of saying time and space, I suppose). Of course that's not
so unrelated to what systems thinking is all about. And that's no
accident. The reason we are moved by the systems paradigm or metaphor is
because we resonate with it. It helps us more realistically understand
ourselves as we interact with the world. In other words, we can say it
works. However, lest we get in trouble by somehow taking systems thinking
as truth, let us remember that it is just a useful metaphor that we create
to help us deal with ourselves in relation to the world of which we are a
part. (I always have to say "of which we are a part" so we don't think of
the world as separate for ourselves.)

>6. The framework has five major components. All comprehensive
>descriptions and all analyses of reality, all histories, research studies,
>news stories, diaries, memories, crime reports, predictions about the
>future, dreams, fantasies, etc. are constructed of the five. They are:
>
> (1) a physical location or environment
> (2) the participant actors or objects
> (3) the action, state, or condition of the actors or objects
> (4) the cognitive states/mental models of the actor(s) or observer(s)
> (5) the time dimension
>
>Example: Soon after midnight (5), the angry (4) crowd (2) stormed (3) the
>jail (1).
>Example: Volcanic eruptions (2) occur (3)(5) where the earth's crust (1) is
>thin (4).

For me, this is a breakdown for understanding the relationships and
processes of any situation and what is happening in that situation.
Further this breakdown can provide us with information to help us make
useful and sometimes even accurate guesses about why.

>7. Each of the five categories has a vast, elaborating conceptual
>substructure, the general features of which are familiar to, and are
>constantly used by, all members of a society. In describing or analyzing
>an aspect of reality or a human experience, the useful elements of these
>conceptual substructures are those which relate systemically to that which
>is being studied. In other words, those elements of a particular aspect
>of reality are important which, if different, would cause other aspects of
>that particular reality to be different. (To illustrate, play with
>alterations in individual elements of the above examples.)

OK, I'll buy into the idea that they are useful. If not, they would have
no appeal to you or me. In fact, it would be unlikely you would have
thought of them if they were not useful.

>8. The five should be thought of as distinct disciplines, but as
>disciplines so interconnected they must be studied simultaneously. All
>are essential. However, (4) abovethe cognitive configuration/mental
>models of the actor(s) or observer(s)is primary. And of this cognitive
>configuration, the major elements of a society's "collective
>unconscious"it's shared assumptions about time, the individual, others,
>nature, causation, the good life, the supernatural, etc., have the
>greatest explanatory power for human affairs.

I'll buy that about collective unconscious, but that's because by the way
human thought processes operate, these are a useful way to make sense of
how we understand anything.

> Making these assumptions explicit should be the overriding purpose of
>every society's general education curriculum. All else is support (How
>did these ideas originate? How translated into action? How transmitted
>integenerationally? How evolving? With what consequences? Etc.)

OK. This is a valid way to rationalize your ideas and their value.

>9. Individual and collective knowledge grows primarily through the
>exploration of relationships between various aspects of reality.
>Instruction should help students make explicit as many elements as
>possible of the implicit conceptual framework they share with other
>members of their society, and facilitate their exploration of interactions
>within and between these elements.

OK, again it sounds like you want to explore relationships and processes.
I like that.

Finally, since I like to study about the brain and how it works, I like to
say that every discipline, every enlightened sense of human nature is
really the brain explaining itself to itself, using the metaphors of its
experience.

P.S. Forgive me if (1) I made any typos or (2) I have gotten too abstract.
It's late and here I am writing this off the top of my head in a kind of
stream of consciousness, though these are ideas that I have been playing
with for a long time. And since I did spend a reasonable amount of time
writing this, I hope I will get some response from you, Marion Brady. JW

--
John Woods
jwoods@execpc.com