alfred lang writes:
> Most of the disciplines have lost legitimate reasons of
>existence insofar as they do damage to the human condition in
>respects that is not their particular business. They repeat what had
>happened in early modernity when religious wars were stopped and one
>had to accept that there is no longer only one religion. The
>difference, obviously, is that imagination of heavens can easily be
>multiple; yet there is really one planet surface and one human
>condition. Do as if anygroup or even anybody could act according to
>their own delight will sooner of later be impossible.
oh wow. this is so precisely aligned with my own thinking - i would
slightly amend the "one planet surface and one human condition;" however,
as even these surfaces have yet to be fully comprehended as intricately
woven depths and depths and expanses and spaces not yet even perceived by
those who discipline the disciplines.
nicely put, alfred.
>
>So I find it better to leave disciplines behind and contribute to
>developing fields.
excellent choice of words here: fields. expanses, spaces, gives relation
to earth and sky and soil and life and rains and depths of possibilities.
yes yes.
>Unfortunately, some fields will miss essential
>disciplines and have to propose and build themselves the necessary
>foundations.
is a foundation necessary? doesn't this connote not only structure
replacing structure, origins,
but also rigidity as opposed to flexibility, fluidity, mobility? maybe
fields needs wheels. ha ha
>This is true for education where the existing sciences
>have split into their respective own pieces what belongs together,
>the social and the individual, the biotic and the cultural etc. Also
>semiotic ecology is understood as a field. For its starting point is
>to propose a conceptuality for understanding evolutions of all kinds.
>Only when you have a general conception of evolution you can deal
>with the specifics of any particular evolutive domain, such as the
>biotic, the individual, or the cultural. And only when you understand
>the commonalities and the differences between such domains you can
>evade this terrible simplification that is now almost common
>agreement, namely that human social and cultural life follows the
>rules reigning bioevolution.
i, too, have noticed a recent upsurge of this thinking, that bio-evolution
is the original copy upon which all human activity imitates its social and
cultural manifestations. myopic, at best.
my personal concern is the ceaseless absence of politics, and the ways
these organize so much of what comes to be called activity. the social and
the cultural, even the bioevolutionary are all deeply political fields -
i would like to hear more on semiotic ecologies, personally, when you find
the time, as it seems to me you see a linking between this and the archaic
punishments of traditional
disciplines.
thanks alfred,
diane
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:47 PDT