In my short life of blogging I have linked to Wikipedia several times to help illustrate terms I have used. Just about every time it has been quite useful. How useful it is for freedom and playfulness?Freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (i.e. unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered). Also, liberation from restraint or from the power of another: independence.
Fair enough, here we find lots of examples of how the word freedom is used, but not much on how we can be free. I am delving into what enables us to be free to learn. This has a depth that is not explored in Wikipedia. To have the freedom to learn people seem to need to be distanced from those parts of being that constrain, and be aware of those that empower. What is constraining and what is empowering is contextual. Context, in this case, is shared and particular; the pasts, presents and futures brought to the learning.
That being-in-the-world thing appears to be creeping in again.
Playfulness is a little easier - there was no direct hit. There was only one hit of 'high relevancy' though: Playful Little Audrey coming in at 100%.
I guess that means you can call me Audrey now - oh well...
2 comments:
With the notion of freedom to learn meaning having no constraints to learning, I think we see plenty of evidence of students at risk having shut down their learning because of blocks, pathologies etc. Many of their constraints are inner.
Freedom to learn could also be related to the physical space, home environment, cultural expectations, time to do so. In saying this I am wondering whether freedom to learn could be mapped around Wilber's 4 quadrants...
I - why I do - intentions, beliefs, assumptions, emotions
IT - what I do - behaviours, biological functions, physical states
WE - why we do - cultural beliefs, norms, worldviews, organizational culture
ITS - what we do - social, political, economic, organization structures, networks, processes, interactions and systems.
When I look at providing my students the freedom to learn I need to keep all in mind, as attention just to one aspect may not effect sustainable freedom.
Do these help delineate the contexts or are there more?
My other thought was the notion of ethical freedom of Rudolf Steiner. It is a freedom which is not necessarily free to do anything, but free to do within the nature of the person, that nature having being formed by balance/harmony of heart-mind. It is the notion of moving to a way of universal being or transpersonal being in which, while you may be free to do anything, you choose to do that which is flowing with the universe.
This then requires self-awareness and alignment... a state of being or perhaps dasein where one's being is aware of itself.
Cheers Sue for your thoughts... they have made me think - but I am going round in uniformed circles.
As described here Wilber's 4 quadrants bring to mind some interesting reflections.
They may be helpful to enable people to be free to learn.
Might they also provide constraints unless we can move between, around and within them?
Should we be free to fuse, diffuse and ignore them at will?
Does 'do' fix an action in time and space?
Is being free to learn fixed in a time or a place?
Does 'what I do' and 'what we do' imply objectively observable actions and constructs?
If so, how do we do this and agree on them?
If not, how do you separate the 'whats' from the 'whys'?
Should we try to separate the 'whats' from the 'whys'?
If we don't separate them they may be phenomena (see previous entry), does that offer an insight into being free?
How do I make distinct 'what I do' and 'what we do'?
Do 'I' do anything that does not involve a 'we'?
I don't understand enough of Wilber's work to ask anything but these fairly blunt questions.
Feel free to help... :u)
Post a Comment