On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Alon Serper wrote:
I
feel the thesis must be very focused on a selected focused, clear and succinct
area – ontologising the epistemological approach of Living Education
Theory. Getting into revolutions, logics, etc, etc within the short
amount of space permitted will just create mishmash of unclear shopping lists
of information that I and the reader will simply drown in. And it has
been done already and well-known and well-researched and, therefore, not
original, and by definition cannot constitute an original contribution to
knowledge.
So I'll focus on the ontologising LAR scope.
(Jack - Completely agree - this will be a major contribution.....|)
I'll
keep it focused, simple, practical, clear and powerful in its clarity,
coherence and simplicity and to the point. Focused, to the point, powerful and clear on the task of
ontologising the epistemological living educational theory approach in order to
be able to construct a way to conceive, study, enquire into and approach human
existence and the human subject in a systematic, structured and communicative
manner.
These
are the standards of judgement and the criteria (Whitehead, 1993, p. 46) I am
asking to be assessed on for my thesis.
Obviously (and this goes without saying) in addition to the ones that
define a doctorate thesis and its awarding as such, namely, an original
contribution to the field of knowledge, clarity of argument, a permitted amount
of space limitation, a critical engagement with ideas of others and material
worthy of publication.
Due
to the task at hand of accommodating and studying human existence, improving
empirical psychology and constructing an alternative heuristic tool for the
conception and study of the human subject I feel these standards and criteria
of judgement are essential here.
I
am a humanist who for a long time has wished to construct a more
humanist/phenomenological oriented disciplined and integrated version of
psychology and a conception of the human subject and human existence. I objected to reductionism, to
alienation, to radical empiricism and positivism, mechanism and determinism
(Serper, 1999). I tried to
construct an alternative by integrating the different models in a series of
empirical studies that would treat and conceive the human subject in a humanist
and phenomenological manner and satisfy my critique (Serper, 1999, 2003).
Then,
I discovered the living action research and the living educational theory
approach to educational research, practitioner research and action
research. I liked the idea of the
materialistic, embodied, ÔIÕ, the living contradiction, the dialectic approach
that permitted internal, living contradictions, non-linear approach and an
engagement with real practice and being embodied and grounded within it. I liked the idea of a dialect with the
action and logic of the concern of improving oneÕs practice and self.
This
has fitted my view that psychology is about self-constructing individuals in
the real-world real-life situations wishing to realise themselves and fulfil a
desire to lead a more meaningful existence with greater purpose and
contribution and to learn to fulfil and improve their ontological security and
well-being and act in and with the world to in this direction, out of this
intension and for this goal. I
liked the idea of a materialistic, holistic and integrated ÔIÕ that embodies,
combines and integrates in it psychological, cognitive, social, historical,
cultural, physiological, biological, emotional, chemical, spiritual and
metaphysical processes and elements.
I liked the idea of an ÔIÕ acting in and with the world (Shanon, 1993,
James, 1890; Serper, 1999) whilst still remaining a personal, transforming and
moving, conscious (James, 1890) ÔIÕ.
Still,
I was disappointed to realise that the living educational theory approach has
been obsessed with an engagement with wars of words with other approaches and
traditions, with lamenting about being oppressed, misunderstood and attacked
politically, with attacking others as oppressors and intolerants, with
explaining, defending and rationalising itself in a defensive mode and with
epistemology, explanation and need to explain and philosophy of science. I was disappointed to realise that
Living educational theory approach is about a practitioner explaining his/her
practice instead of understanding what and who he/she is what the practice is
all about and why is it so. I was
breathless with excitement and thrilled when someone and an academic approach
has finally, acknowledged that life and human existence are value-laden and are
about the fulfilment of values but equally disappointed and frustrated when
this was used for a systematic, mechanistic methodology and epistemology
instead of a sincere, genuine attempt to comprehend, made sense of, convey and
clarify what values mean and signify and the true value of values.
I
was disappointed when what I perceive to be the real scope and issue, namely
values, ethos, aesthetics, have become passionless, life-less lips service,
mechanistic, cold, structured and derived of ardour, soul, evocation, feelings,
emotions, blood and tears and not attributed the place it deserved, whilst
abstract, mystical, ambiguous and wordy concepts have gained the passion and
soul. I was disappointed from its
very cautious and sterile approach to words and existence, from its fear of
offending and showing blood, hatred, confusion, head-banging in frustration and
pain, aggressiveness, pain, grief, sorrow, confusion, hair-tearing,
self-beating and violence. I
regarded this to be an hypocrisy for I believe these are embodied and laden
within the practice and notion of value and their search and fulfilment, which
means failure and embracing the failure to fulfil them too (Living
Contradictions). I was
disappointed when they were merely utilised as clean, sterile, clean-cut and
clear epistemological knowledge searching and knowledge gathering and conveying
and contributing.
Since
the beauty of Living Action Research Theory approach is that it is embodied
within an individualÕs practice and action and encourages action through a
dialogue with it in action, I have decided to take action and produce an actual
doctorate thesis embracing my critique in constructing a way of dealing with it
in action by doing and producing it.
This has been an immensely difficult exercise. The great difficulties, emotionally and physically
exhausting, are the price of construction and the price of an actual action and
acting, rather than speaking and critiquing. They are embodied within the desire to contribute to
something that one is subscribed to and full of enormous respect towards. I believe that the more respect, the
more pain and resources one inflicts on oneself for and towards the task of
contributing to. To act, to feel,
to do something about something, to engage, to commit, to be truly concerned is
difficult and exhausting. To talk,
to critique in idle, an idle talk (Heidegger), to theorise with engagement
means an easy, passive indifference.
In
this thesis I conduct an ontological search and enquiry for the epistemological
values. I use my past work and
effort to be able to rationalise, ground down to earth and legitimise my desire
to conduct a living educational theory enquiry in what it means for me to
become and be.
I
use the fact that I have established myself as an accredited ontologist
(Serper, 2004, Whitehead, 2004). I
use my established, proven, credentials as an accredited theoretical and
constructive/ing critical psychologist of the human subject (Serper, 1999,
2004). I use my establishment as
an accredited thinker and a creative poet of human existence (Serper,
2004). I use the fact that I have
worked very hard for several years to secure a green light from academia
(Serper, 2004, Prof. Motzkin and Prof. ShanonÕs critique of Serper, 1999) to
go, search and enquire for an inquiry for an alternative, integrated manner and
model to conceive and study the human subject and human existence.
To
become and be means, for me, securing a life of greater meaning, purpose and
contribution that I take to be an improvement on the practice of existing and
being/becoming and as embraced within the question and logic of how do I
improve my practice (Whitehead, 1989).
I view this to signify greater ontological security, dignity, personal
integrity, autonomy, self-gratification and hope for a greater sense of
contribution, meaning and purpose which I regard to be human and shared and
comprehended by all human beings in common.
I,
then, try to clarify what they mean to me from within my living my own
existence and becoming. This means
understanding and delving into. It
means making sense of them. It
means trying to communicate them to others who share an embodied knowledge of
experiencing them from within their own existing and leading their own
existence and desire to obtain greater meaning, purpose, well-being,
ontological security, hope and contribution from it for the future being and
future construction as being. This
means a complete ontological engagement to complement the epistemological
engagement.
This
thesis communicates ontological and aesthetic stories of my dealing and coping
with (ethos) the phenomena (and their meaning) of ontological security, hope
for greater meaning, personal integrity, sense of autonomy, self-respect, self-gratification,
dignity, sense of self and contribution to the world and others and,
vicariously, yet obliquely and implicitly me. The stories convey their fulfilment, their frustration and
the/my failure to fulfil them.
They convey stories of self-disappointment, frustration from myself,
self-deception, determinism and being determined by others and other things,
indignity, lack of self-respect, etc and my dealing with these phenomena. This is done to learn, to come to terms
with and understand.
The
thesis and the stories aim to strengthen the living educational theory
approach, to fulfil its true potential and to turn it into a manner to
approach, study, convey and enquire into the conception of human existence and
the human subject. They aim to fulfil
my role and ambitions as a constructive critical psychologist of the human
subject who actually constructs in practice and real-life an alternative
solution to the conception and study and approaching human existence and the
human subject. Hence, they aim for
me to derive and obtain the experience of greater sense of meaning,
accomplishment and contribution and to feel greater self-gratification,
integrity, self-respect, ontological security, hope for the future (mine),
dignity and respect in my life, being and becoming and improve my practice of
existing and being and becoming a better researcher of human existence and
ontology.
They
aim to be a very practical solution that can work in practice, that can
contribute, that can engage and teach and show and illustrate and rationalise
and justify. They strive to be
original, of real and practical benefit.
They endeavour to be clear, to complement, to complete and integrated
and be integrated within.
I
regard myself as a researcher who wishes to bring an original way of
approaching and studying the conception of the human subject in the
world. I am someone who wishes to bring Living action
research, namely the materialistic and connecting 'I', the dialectical
engagement with the question of 'how do I improve my practice', in
and within the practice itself (living contradictions etc), to the study
of the conception of human existence and the human subject as constructing
critical psychology of the human subject and to bring true ontology,
phenomenological engagement and ethical and aesthetic of delving in the
phenomenon of human existence to Living action research, action
research, self-study and practitioner research and, and
through, inclusional integration. I am, therefore, contributing an
original contribution to my field and to the academy as part of the fulfilment
of a doctorate of philosophy degree - original contribution to academic
research and to others.
In the thesis I discuss this, rationalise it and illustrate it.
Jack said - Just enjoyed reading the account. I particularly liked:
The thesis will, therefore, show the way ontological principles could and
should be employed as a heuristic tool to approach, study and conceive human
existence in a living educational theory thesis of the researcher/authorÕs
practice of being/becoming/living/existing in and with the world. This is
combining and integrating phenomenology and phenomenological methods and
approaches, autobiographical study, action research, the living theory action
research approach to educational research, constructing critical psychology of
the human subject, post-moderna and post-modern approaches and methodologies,
humanistic/existential approaches. This is being done with all the limitations
and consequential strengths of producing a single thesis and a doctorate
research programme in a small British university in 21st century England.
And I say
The thesisÕ role is to contribute to, complement, push forward and improve existing approaches of conceiving and approaching human existence and the human subject
I contribute to the empirical heuristic tools by introducing the possibility of conducting an empirical research enquiry into human existence using my materialistic ÔIÕ in dialect with the practice of living, existing, being and becoming in and with the world in an attempt to improve it and live a better, more meaningful life in and with the world. This is done using a critical reflection, practitioner-research and action research enquiry into the fulfilment of my values and principles in the process of my living and existing in and with the world. A process enquiry where I am learning from my failure to fulfil these values and principles and analysing and making sense from my successes to fulfil them as I wish and plan to. I use the living educational theory approach and show how I can produce a theory of human existence and approaching it by asking myself the question how do I improve my leading a more fulfilled existence with greater meaning, purpose, quality, ethos and contribution and acting out to achieve this goal.
Still, in the living educational theory approach to action research and academic research enquiry values are the reasons for action in the explanation for an individualÕs educational development. They are embodied in his/her practice. Their meaning can be communicated and clarified in the course of their emergence and unfolding in practice as epistemological standards of judgement that constitute an explanation for the actions, practice and living/life in a dialectic engagement with the question ÔHow do I improve this process of education here?Õ that perceives the ÔIÕ as a Ôliving contradictionÕ (Whitehead, 1989a, 2004b). This means that the ÔIÕ contains two mutually exclusive opposites, the experience of holding educational values and the experience of their negation. The explanations, theories and description for the practice, life, living and existence are being constructed by integrating such contradictions in the presentations of the practitionersÕ claims to know their practice, life and living.
There is an insufficient engagement in the existing
approach of Living Educational theory (Whitehead, 1985, 1989, 1993, 2004),
action research (McNiff, 1988, 2000), practitioner research, living life as methodology
(Marshall, 2001), autoethnography (Ellis and Bochner, 2000, 1995) and the
postmoderna with the meaning of values and leading a better existence and/or
practice. There is too much
assumption and allegation that this is the way life is and human beings
are? There is an insufficient
accountability with the questions of why is life being and lived this way? [Why
is it like this?] Why are human beings like this? Why are they this way? Why is
the materialistic ÔIÕ this way? What makes human beings, human lives and human
practices this way, act in this manner and take and construct this form? What does living values actually mean
and imply? What does it mean for an individual and the individual who live them?
What are these values that give life a form and can constitute a way of
conducting epistemology and theory? Why are they so important? How do I make
sense of them? How do I clarify them?
Ontology
is epistemology and epistemology is ontology. They are combined and integrated in this thesis. Epistemology cannot stand alone, on its
own, by its own means, without ontology.
So much effort and hard work has been carried out on epistemology and
its explanation, why has ontology been left out in the cold? Why has it not been granted with the
respect that it deserves? Why has
it been taken for granted?
I
am. ThatÕs true. But for what purpose and why am I, for
what reason? Why is it so important that I am and continue to be here? Why is it so important to explain me
and my practice and being here?
Without comprehending the importance of being (ontology) there is no
point in explaining it (epistemology). How can you explain something without
fully comprehending, grasping and accounting for it? How can you use it to explain the thing you wish to explain
(the practice) without fully grasping, clarifying and accounting for its/the
explanation (the values) and how you use it (the values) to explain the
practice?
Epistemology
cannot go without ontology. Why
couldnÕt the living educational approach comprehend this and do something about
it? How dare it take this for
granted? Who and in what right did and could it take it for granted? How could it perceive itself as a true
humanist (Whitehead, 1981) and a humanitarian (Whitehead, 1993) tool and
approach for the future of humanity (Whitehead, 2004) whilst treating ontology
in this manner?
I
love and have a great sympathy for living educational theory so I wish to
produce a purely ontological account drawing on and using it. I am willing to take the courage and
the immense difficulties that this entails, even if it tells me that it is
educational (education and learning) and not therapeutic/therapy. Still, the ÔIÕ and the/its learning
undergoes crises, severe ontological shaking and great anxiety and despair and
pain. It needs this in order to
learn, change, improve and fulfil.
It needs this to explain itself and account for itself. The confrontation of the ÔIÕ with
itself requires it. The self
dialogue (Moustakas, 1990, 1994, 1981) with the self requires this. No learning could occur without
this. No ÔIÕ can take place
without this. And it is harsh,
shaking, tormenting, vicious and an extremely difficult exercise to undertake
and carry out.
The
practicing, acting, materialistic, interconnecting ÔIÕ needs to be made sense
of. It is insufficient to assume
the ÔIÕ to be materialistic and living and connecting. Who is this ÔIÕ? What is
this ÔIÕ? What does this ÔIÕ stand for? Why is the values this ÔIÕ is holding
important? Why can they serve as epistemological standards of judgement? Why
can they serve as a theory and heuristics? Why do the values give the life and the practice their form?
There
is no doubt in my mind that ontological principles are what construct human
existence and human becoming in the world and can serve as explanations and
theories of human existence and as the basis for a heuristic tool for the
conception and study of the human subject and human existence. The ontology, the ethos, the ethics,
the aesthetics needs to be catered for and delved into.
Individuals
act and live in a desire to become and be more ontological secure, more
self-satisfied from themselves, more satisfied/gratified from their actions,
relationships and beings, with greater sense of personal integrity, dignity,
sense of autonomy and self, hope for a better future, self-respect, and respect
and dignity from others.
Individuals act, live and construct their lives to reduce their sense of
being degraded, undignified, disrespected, dependence and lack of self-gratification,
self-respect. They act to diminish
despair and ontological, existential void, noid (Frankl).
I
cannot think of any individual who lives and acts in order to be degraded,
dehumanised and achieve despair and void.
This is absurd and simply ludicrous. Individuals entertain suicidal thought and commit suicide
when sensing ontological, existential void, degradation and lack of respect,
meaning, self-respect, autonomy and hope for improvement. The profession of mental health caters
for individuals in crises who are miserable because their condition/crises
prevent them from achieving self-gratification, respect, dignity, autonomy,
self-respect, personal-integrity, ontological security and hope for a better
life of greater purpose, meaning and contribution.
Indeed,
it is unlikely for one (anyone) to be and feel self-gratified, self-respected,
fulfilled, satisfied, happy and dignified in a meaningful existence full of
purpose and contribution when he/she is undergoing the following existence. He/she loses a high-respected, well-paid
post and vocation in authority and responsibility over others and regress to
lead of life of being mutilated and overweight by medications with horrific
side-effect, a life of earning an extremely meagre pocket money, spending hours
every day stuffing and stamping envelopes as part of a rehabilitation
project. He/she is severely
degraded, treated like an infant, being told of and what to do and determined
by the medical staff (some the age of his/her daughter or son) during his/her
recurring hospitalisations, some due to severe despair and ontological disgust
and void due to his/her dead-end existing situation that he/she is told by the
expert psychiatrists to be chronic.
He/she is being unable to enjoy intimate and physical relationship with
individuals as part of his/her conditions and symptoms. He/she is perceived to be eccentric and
a menacing danger, a potential violence and harm. Now, tell me could this poor
person feel aesthetically satisfied/gratified and a well-being and ontological
security from and within his/her ontological being and becoming? Could he/she sense that that he/she is
leading an existence of ethos and contribution in these experiences?
But
what do these actually mean for the individual? How does she/he actually live
them? What does he/she actually
experience, undergo and go through? Why are they, in my mind at least, the
construction tools and building material of human existence? Why are they so crucial that he/she
would live or die for them, construct or despair, move forward or succumb, act
out or being determined? Why are they epistemological for the understanding of
human practice and life? Why are they methodological and systematic for the
understanding and explanation of human practice and life and living? What makes them epistemological and
methodological? How are they being
acted and lived as explanations and methodology? How are they being defined by
the individuals who act them out in order to improve their practice and life
and achieve life of greater meaning, purpose, ethos and contribution?
The
present thesis endeavours to answer these questions by showing an individual, a
materialistic ÔIÕ (me), who is an ontologist, constructive critical
psychologist of the human subject and a living educational theorist, who tries
to get into the very meaning of living my ontological principles in the course
of my life. In the present thesis
I try to communicate, clarify and account for what the values mean to me. I try to convey what the failure to
fulfil them truly signify in practice to me. I strive to communicate the anxieties that this entails on
and to me, as well as the sense of fulfilment, thrill and satisfaction that
living and fulfilling them truly imply in practice to and on me. Since I am general and have selected
the very ontological principles that no one could deny their being commonly
acted out and lived by all human subjects in common this account could be
clarified as a heuristics and heuristic tool, theory and enquiry of human
existence in the world.
I
have been very cautious in selecting the principles. I have learned from WhiteheadÕs mistake in assuming the
universality of the values of freedom, democracy and justice, whilst working
with a Singaporean educator (Whitehead, 1993) on her living education theory
and being told that not only that they are not universal but that for this
particular action researcher they clash with her real values. The principles that I have selected for
my own living theory of human existence, ontology and the conception and study
for human existence and the human subject are ontological and ethical and human
all too human.
They
transcend all cultural, historical, political, ethnical, economic, unconscious,
linguistic and social boundaries and processes as ontological principles. All human beings wish to be dignified,
ontologically secured, gratified, autonomous, self-gratified, respected and
human with a sense of hope, meaning, achievement, fulfilment and purpose. All human beings wish to feel that they
have made and are in the process of making a progress and moving forward rather
than backward, upward rather than downward, towards hope, betterment and
realisation as opposed to despair, worsening and failure. No human being wishes
to die sensing his/her existence has been a total waste and an illusion.
Still,
every individual tackles living, constructing and acting out these ontological
principles in the course of his/her life in a personal and unique manner. The cultural, historical, social,
ethical, economic, unconscious political, linguistic play a role in the
individual living them out in the course of his/her life and existing, becoming
and being what he/she is. IÕll let other researchers and other heuristic tools
worry about an analysis of these historical, social, linguistic, ethical,
political, economic and cultural processes as processes. What I am concerned about here in this
thesis is the individual wishing to construct and live a life of greater
purpose, meaning, ontological security and hope for a better existence (moving
forward rather than backward).
This is the scope of this thesis.
I wish to do little else.
IÕll let other researchers worry about the philosophy, history, politics
and sociology of science, logics, economics and the future of humanity as a
race and species.
I
need to understand, grasp and delve into the meaning of these principles and
living them out in practice. I need to show I have understood them and taken
the task of grasping them in a systematic, convincing, critical and rigorous
manner. I need to find out,
examine, clarify and communicate what they mean and signify for me in the
course of my life, living, existing and becoming. If I can do so I could, then, combine it with living action
research and account for the meaning of human existence and how it could be
approached, clarified, tackled and studied in a methodological, clear
empirical, systematic and critical manner.
The
thesis will not deal with logics (Whitehead, 2004). It will not mention propositional and dialectic forms of
logic (Whitehead, 1989) nor impositional and inclusional logic (Rayner, 2004)
and the need for a new, independently constructed logic (Laidlaw, 2004;
Whitehead, 2004). It will not
discuss the difference between tradition research (McNiff, 2000) and
avant-garde alternatives (Denzin, 1997).
It will not talk about technical rationality and theoretical
epistemology and the new epistemology of praxis, critical reflection and
embodies knowledge (see Schon, 1995; Whitehead, 2004; Whitehead et al., 2004;
Mellet, 1995; McNiff, 2000). It
will not discuss positivism vs. post-positivism. It will not discuss postmoderna vs. moderna. It will not discuss empiricism vs.
creative art and emotions (Mellet, McNiff, 2000).
[An email I wrote on the seventh of January, 2005- I
intend to create something that propositionalists will view as propositional
and living action researchers as living. We are all living, despite what
we think of some of our beloved colleagues. Even
propositionalists have feelings and are living human beings. Reading some
of the accounts (e.g., McNiff, 2000; Mellet, 1995), I sometimes feel unease
at the attack on the so-called propositional and the shedding tears, some
crocodiles and some real on being constantly attacked and misunderstood.
We
also attack. We also have teeth and hands, intelligence and logics and
'brain' and can beat them up too. We are also strong. When beaten
up we
can retaliate and defend ourselves. We do not need to constantly play the
victim.
Somehow, I feel that constantly playing the victim makes
us victims. And in
many cases persecutors too.
One of my critique of post-colonialism is that by constantly talking about
race and persecution they acknowledge it and ignite and advertise an
argument and categories and give a hand to racism. Sometimes the best
thing
is to let something kill itself and die on its own. Sometimes the best
thing is to ignore something, whilst acknowledging its existence in the
construction of something else. The answer to racism is to construct and
permit equality and equal rights and to ignore the racists. Constructing
equality instead of spending all the time and energy breaking the racists'
noses and spending the nights and days at police stations.
If I constantly cry and lament and whine that I cannot do something then I
spend my time lamenting and whining instead of doing and constructing an
alternative that can work and can be very good and accepted.
In my thesis, I intend to bring something up for scrutiny, something
rigorous and of very good quality and let it speak for itself and construct
and reform by actually doing and bringing up something. I do not intend
to
cry that the propositional paralyses me and that I cannot construct what I
wish to because of it. My answer is to do something and to bring it up
for/to scrutiny.
It is there, in the world. Therefore it could be done and constructed.
Whether it is 'propositional', 'fish', 'kukoriko' or jhjhjh it does not
matter. I am putting something out there. Something involving a
high
degree of rigour, intelligence, excellent research with excellent analysis
and data gathering technique, modesty, originality, engagement and coherence
and clear focus. I'll let it speak for itself and argue its place and
itself into place, the place it deserves and that awaits it.]
The
thesis will bring a research that could be perceived as both very traditional
and pseudo positivistic and avant-garde and ground breaking. Hopefully, and as part of my intention
as the author, empiricists will perceive it as a good, rigorous, vigorous,
well-researched and contributing/beneficial empirical work, whilst critical
theorists and action researchers will perceive it a very good piece of living
action and educational research theory thesis/work.
I,
myself, bring up what can be perceived as traditional narratives (e.g.,
Lieblich ; Kleinman; Connelly and Clandinin). I produce, bring and convey narratives that discuss and
revolve around well-known, human, concepts that any reader could comprehend as
part of being a living human being – ontological security, a hope and
desire for a meaningful future, self-gratification, integrity, personal and
human dignity, and, for that matter, despair, self-dissatisfaction, ontological
insecurity, self-disappointment, self-deception, existential and ontological
void.
The
narratives rigorously and systematic analyse these principles, living
ontological experiences and concepts by narrating what they mean in practice
for me as I try to lead a more agreeable (aesthetic) meaningful, more ethical
and more self-fulfilling existence (ethos) in the world and improve my practice
of existing meaningfully and contributively and to make sense and convey this
endeavour (epistemology). Since they
clearly, critically and systematically evaluate, revolve around, study and
communicate concrete, tangible and ostensible things the research could be seen
as valid, authentic, conventional and reliable by both traditional
pseudo-positivists empiricists and post-positivistic, post-modernists, critical
theorists and action researchers.
Whilst
this is carried out using my own unique existence, as these are ontological
principles that are shared and could be grasped by all human subjects in common
then any living human being could carry out of systematically and rigorously
analysing them from within his/her own existence and his/her, what seems to be
unquestionable, desire to lead a more meaningful and fulfilled existence in and
with the world, with more purpose and contribution. This can be read and understood by traditional, empirical
and pseudo-positivistic researchers as being replicable, standardisation,
universality and reliability and conventional.
The
thesis will, therefore, bring the ontological, ethical, phenomenological and
aesthetic and epistemological narratives to contribute to the Living
educational theory approach, to action research, practitioner research, to
narratives and to the study (heuristics and heuristic tools) of the conception of
the human subject and human existence, psychological models and versions. I feel this is what they all need and
require to strengthen them and transform them into something more powerful,
more complete, more authentic, more practical that actually works in the
real-world in real situations.
Talking
endlessly about logic, research, doing research, language, theory, tradition,
technicality, rationality, empiricism, ontology, ethics, the nature and essence
of existence would actually lead nowhere but to countless words, arguments,
debates, worthless philosophising and pseudo intellectualisation. It is time to bring and place in the
public arena of a systematic scrutiny something that could be actually argued, rationalised
and globally accepted as human, living and sense-making in its simplicity,
practicality, coherence, logic and commonsense.
It
is time to improve the situation by actually acting out and doing something
concrete about it. Bringing these
narrative to the public arena for scrutiny does. Doing and producing the narrative in a systematic, rigorous
manner, whilst being aware of and demonstrating within the argument and
narratives a full grasp and understanding of and an engagement with the different
schools of thoughts, ideas and debates within the field, does. Keeping it simple, coherent,
practical and well placed within a clear and defined structure and discipline
and an argued out system does.
Thinking about, maintaining implementing and acting out throughout the
thesis in a clear, systematic and rigorous manner the contribution it sought to
make to other researchers and the field in practice as the thesis unfolds
does.
I
got myself an original, systematic, critical and well thought out contribution,
of real benefit to others and to research and the problem I sought to enquire
into. I got myself a Ph.D. I am free to pursue this and to further
rationalise, justify and illustrate my position and argument. I am likely to secure good positions
and vocations, respect, dignity, financial and ontological security,
self-respect, self-gratification and life of greater purpose, meaning and
contribution.
On
the other hand, discussing logics, philosophical, historical, sociological,
linguistic, theoretical and conceptual problems and issues – question and
concerns that have existed and debated on for thousands of years and that are
likely to last and be discussed for another few millenniums – is likely
to get me a place in a permanent place in a coffee house, a bar or a bench
somewhere, a box in Hyde park corner.
I am likely to grow into a bring old man, discussing mantras, jargon and
ideas that no one can understand.
I am likely to spend the rest of my life drowning in mystical and
abstractive notions. I am likely
to be frustrated, angry, financially and ontologically insecure, feeling a
waste, an ontological despair and void, lacking integrity, hope, self-respect
and self-gratification and sense of leading a meaningful existence of purpose
and contribution.
I
got myself ontological insecurity, drowning in words and abstractive/conceptual
ideas, no real contribution, no meaning, no purpose, anger, frustration,
self-hatred, despair and existential void. I got myself millions of words in Alon SerperÕs Webpages,
discussion forums, begging to be acknowledged and read and replied and not
counting as anything concrete in terms of my career ambitions and future hope
for myself.
If
anyone tells me that what I am doing, proposing and carrying out as my
Doctorate of Philosophy thesis and degree is insufficient, and a very easy,
unoriginal and shallow (with no contribution) thing to carry out then IÕd reply
to him/her - then go do it yourself.
Go and systematically analyse and carry out an ontological living
educational theory of your own experiences, and your living out in the course
of your existing/being/becoming, of the ontological principles I am outlining
here (ontological security, hope for a more meaningful future,
self-gratification, self-respect, integrity, dignity, etc). Go and do it in the manner that I am
discussing and illustrating here in this thesis, analysing their negation,
living contradiction and their fulfilment as part of the desire to lead a more
meaningful existence of greater purpose, meaning and contribution (ethos) as
part of a very practical and dialectic engagement with the epistemological
question of how do I improve my practice of leading a more ethical
existence?
Do
it and then tell me if it is insufficient, too easy and too shallow. Go, undertake and undergo the uncertainties,
ontological shakings and difficulties that this exercise entails and the very
difficult ontological questions that penetrate the very core of your being,
existence, ontological/existential dilemmas and soul and that constitute you,
your self and naked, exposed being in the world. Do the exercise in the manner I intend for it to be and tell
me that it is easy, shallow and meaningless. Grab and confront your self, your existence and the very
ontology that constitutes and constructs you.
I
reiterate them for you. This is
the bit on the implication of the ontology and the delving in it that I think
can complement the epistemological Living educational
thesis.
He/she becomes an ÔIÕ and I am taking responsibility, risk
and grip and appearing as me.
There is nothing to hide in. I am exposed. I shed everything but my
existence and my desire to understand and account for it in order to develop it
improve it and its meaning, purpose and quality. There is nothing left but my determination to come to grip
with human existence, clarify, test and communicate it in pounding myself
unmercifully with the question - is this what I want from my life? What is
becoming of me? Where am I? Who am I? which incorporates the question how have
I become who I am? Am I on the right path? Am I going the right way? Am I
heading the right direction? Am I going forward? Am I going where I want to go,
be and become? Will I think this in the far future? Is my plan too emotional
and passionate? Is my plan too rational and systematic? Is the pace I follow
and going quick enough? Should I go quicker? Am I going quickly enough? Am I
going too quickly? Should I slow things down? Have I done the right things?
What should have I done differently? What did I do well? What did I screw up? What and how much
damage have I done? What could be done to amend it? How could I use the damage
positively, make the most of it or at least diminish it? Have I lived my life
in accordance with my values, principles, integrity and sense of self and
being? What should have I learned from?
Writing these and thinking about this is scary and
panicking. Could it be that my
life has been a waste, a scam, an illusion, a failure, a damage, an accident?
Could it be that I am a bad human being?
Could it be that others would have had a better life had I not existed?
Could it be that I have got many things and actions wrongly? What am I going to
do if I reach the realization that I have not even slightly begun to live my
potential being, that my life has been a waste and an illusion and that I have
wasted it? What if I find out that things could have been done in a far better
way than the manner in which I have led them? What if I find out and realize that there is nothing to be
done to improve the damage that I have inflicted? What if I can do nothing to
repair and amend the damage? What if I can only make it worse?
What if I discover another way in which I should have
lived? What if I discover that I am a victim of horrific external circumstances
and beyond anything I could? What
if I find out that despite my enormous efforts, deeds, self-accountability and
hard/slave-labour things get worse for me due to circumstances beyond me? What if I find out that I am a victim
of horrific external circumstances that are beyond me and anything I could
do? What if I find out that all my
hard, vicious labour has been Sisyphus one and that all my efforts leave me
down the mountains, even more exhausted and hurt than when I started rolling
the stone up the mountain?
What if I discover there is no hope but a sick illusionary
one? What if I discover despair, anguish and pain and no reason to improve
myself, become a more righteous, decent and ethical being and, therefore,
should do nothing but devouring on the aesthetic pleasure of the moment as if
there is no tomorrow? What if I
lose hope? Could I live with that? What if I find out I have been too
righteous, that I have been far too immersed in the desire to be moral and
principled that the aesthetic was scarified and others have taken advantage of
me? What if I become cynical and come to believe that cynicism is the solution?
Still. What if I turn out to be an incredible being,
loved, more ontological secured, respected, understood? What if my hope being
strengthened and reinforced? What if IÕll be able to understand things, to make
sense out of things, to explain and account for myself to myself? What if I
shall be able to improve my future being, change things for the better and
construct a better self for my future?
Nonetheless. What if I sacrifice my present in the desire
to have a better future self? By definition, merely the present can be
experienced consciously. The past
is lived, experienced and referred to whilst experiencing the present. The future is the light in the tunnel,
the point of direction towards which the present is leading and experienced.
Life and living are in the present not in the past nor in the future. What if
the pain, panic and uncertainties in analyzing my life and living in the
present become my life and self and in my present desire to construct a future
self I do not account for and truly live the present one? What if, in wishing to develop the
future I sacrifice the present living? What if I never able to break the
vicious circle of suffering in the present in order to construct a future and
creating nothing other than a self-tormenting and suffering self, much like in
BecketÕs Waiting for Godot? It could be a sick and vicious
illusion, like Godot.
This is very scary and terrorizing. The uncertainty is
tormenting. I feel exposed, I am terrified of finding out things that will
destroy the layers of ontological security I have put on so as not to face
these question in a systematic, vicious, rigorous manner as an academic,
structured method. Is it worth it?
It could be destructive, self-destructive. IsnÕt it better to write,
intellectualise and philosophise about human existence, reviewing theories of
it, methodologies and approaches to it? I am being defended and secured this
way from myself and from my need to expose it alone and naked. IsnÕt it better to review othersÕ
ideas, to critique them, describe them, engage with them, read them, write
about them? I can do this in a very rigorous manner.
I could analyse words, ideas and concepts. I could think about what they mean to
me, tie them with othersÕ ideas I have read. I could think about their flaws and strengths and avoid delving
and launching inside my own aching and tormenting self. A self that is terrified from itself
and the act of confronting it. I
could avoid my own living experiences, my own waste, my exposure, my very
costly mistakes that have cost me blood, pain, torment and ontological shake
and terror. I could avoid
experiences and phenomena that are tearing me apart from inside where I am most
exposed, where I am most defined, where I am most living, gushing, hurting,
developing, reflecting introspectively, sense-making, making sense, analyzing
and acting. I could avoid
experiences and phenomena where I am most accounting for and confronting with
myself, where I am most responsible for myself, where I am most inclined and
vulnerable to seek a change and transformation and change and transform.
The good side is that I am still alive and still a practicing,
licensed living and existing human being and still planning on living here,
improve my qualification as a certified living human being and could change and
reverse those horrific potential findings if this is what I find and wish to
do. Changing for the better is
learning and developing as a human being and this is why learning is embedded
in living and education in ontology.
Another good thing is that I do not believe anyone could
be all bad or all good. All human
beings have positive and constructive sides that contribute to others, to the
self and its integrity, security and satisfaction and to a global cause and
utility as well as negative sides that hurt and damage others and the
self. Everyone is both a victim
and persecutor. Anyone cold resist
or accept and follow in and as reaction to both external situations and
himself/herself.
Still, to live means to experience, to act, to sense to
take responsibility and accountability, to make sense, to take risk, to be
launched into uncertainties and panic, not to know if it is destructive, or
constructive, good or bad and to try construct the best that is feasible for
oneself. To live means to
confront, to tackle, to bleed, to breath heavily and to try to release tension
and gain tension in an attempt to release it. To live signifies to make a difference, to contribute, to
solve problems, to act out and to rejoice the fact that the passivity, apathy,
inactivity and the launching of words into the void are being smashed and that
the void is being constructively filled by life and living into hope.
The
heuristic is the smashing of the intellectualization and the words thrown out
into the abyss. The heuristic is
the courage to take action and tell the story of oneÕs being in a dialogue with
the question of what it is to be and become. A dialogue which takes place in a desire to show how I can
deal with the question of how to make a difference, to improve, to make it
better. The heuristic is about the
courage to tell others to take self-responsibility, to go to the source of pain
and meaning, to reflect, to introspect, to come to grip, to expose, to deal, to
cope, to face, to confront, to identify, and locate, execute and improve and to
tell and illustrate it firsthand.
What
are these values that give life a form and can constitute a way of conducting
epistemology and theory? Why are they so important? How do I make sense of
them? How do I clarify them?
Ontology,
epistemology, ethos, ethics and aesthetics could then be combined and
integrated to form an enquiry and theory of human existence and turned into a
heuristics and heuristic tool.
It
is not feasible to do the epistemology without taking care of the
ontology. In order to carry out
and contribute to the epistemology the ontology needs to be analysed and made
sense of. The values are used to
account for a theory of practice.
The individual acts in this manner in the course of his/her practice in
order to fulfil the values, see how they are being contradicted and
fulfilled. But what are they? How
is this done? What is the significance of it/this? Why is it so crucial for the field of ontology, critical
psychology of the human subject, constructive critical psychology of the human
subject, theoretical psychology and humanism? Why is it so important for action research and living action
research with their epistemological innovation in the field of the philosophy,
history, sociology and politics of science, logics and philosophy of education
and educational research? These
are the questions the thesis strives to answer and account for.
In
this way, I believe, the new tradition of action research, living action
research and autoethnography will be integrated and combined with the
traditional empirical research in a true inclusional relationship. A relationship in dialogue aimed at
establishing mutual harmony-seeking relationship of correspondence of one with
another in a Ôcomplementary, mutually transforming relationshipÕ (Rayner,
forthcoming). A relationship aimed
at breaking the individual traditionÕs boundaries and extending them to create
an integration that maintains and respects the integrity and principles of the
two traditions whilst wishing to grow, account for the weaknesses, improve, and
strengthen them. A relationship
objects to being determined by Ôresponse of ÔoneÕ to the fixed frame of
reference imposed by the other, which arises in turn from their dislocation
rather than togethernessÕ (ibid). A relationship aims at
creating an integrated tradition that is accepted and comprehended by scholars
as innovative, beneficial, systematic, rigorous and clear.
If
a thesis is judged and assessed by its original contribution then why do I or
should I have to repeat things and arguments already done by Whitehead,
Husserl, Heidegger, Schon, Dewey, Elliot, McNiff, Bullough & Pinnegar,
Rayner et al.,? They have,
already, explained the importance of the materialistic ÔIÕ, of a dialectic
engagement with practice, of praxis, of embodied knowledge, of inclusionality,
of living contradiction, of critical reflection, of phenomenology , of Dasein,
of the subject, of the existence.
I should produce a thesis in the area that I think they have neglected
and the one that needs an elaboration and expansion. An individual (me) living his/my human ontological
principles in the course of his/my existing/becoming/being in and with the
world as a materialistic, connecting ÔIÕ (Whitehead, 1985) in and with the
world (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2004) in a practical engagement with the
question how do I lead a more meaningful and beneficial existence in the world?
And looking at and delving in the ontological principles that permit him/me to
carry out this enquiry and answer this question and what it means to live this
question and carry out this exercise.