Charles writes
>I'm so individually oriented with respect to learning that I find it
>very hard to reorient to the activity level with respect to learning.
>I keep wondering, How does a collective subject learn? [I lean rather
>fuzzily towards collective learning as the emergence of individual
>subjects' interactions (of course, historically and culturally
>situated), but since collective and individual subjects are on
>different levels, their behaviors and learning processes are
>different.] And even if the collective subject learns, the new
>activity eventually becomes an old activity for later subjects. Does
>this mean that later subjects, collective and/or individual, are at
>Level II learning, because they are not facing (have not faced)
>double binds? Or, if there is a new type of learning emerging, as YE
>asserts, does it mean that later participants will inherit the models
>and methodologies of earlier subjects, and so will be more easily
>able to find double binds and transcend them? Or ...?
- these are the kinds of confusions i have, too - it would help me,
certainly, if there were a specific context for adult learning, personally
-
i've not noticed a lot of parallels between children's learning and adult
learning - but since i'm particularly interested in adult resistance to
learning, i have been trying to understand these same ideas of 'collective
subject(s)' in situations of adult learning,
and find myself faced with all sorts of different questions about personal
histories that inhibit more learning than enable. it's as if our
experiences and needs for familiarity provoke repetition, and revoke new
possibilities for learning -
but i'll read on and see - perhaps a context is being offered, ?
di
"my doctor says i wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if i would just keep my
finger out of there. "
Ralph Wiggums.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:12 PDT