|Venn diagram representing Classical Definition of Knowledge|
In a discussion with Keith the affineur recently, he took the time to explain his position of "invitational development" more.
He used the concepts ontology and epistemology, and noted Marx' use of the philosophical branches (need to find more on this), to frame his point that we need to seek out an understanding of the "other", empathise with their situation acknowledging the limitations of all knowledge, and propose our alternatives non-confrontationally. He suggested that to propose an alternative to which the "other's" world view is put into fundamental opposition, is to be confrontational (even violent?), and likely non productive.
This conversation has come from the sentence in the opening paragraph I am developing for the OpenUC proposal.
|Colored woodprint |
by Samuel Coccius, Basle Switzerland. Wikimedia Commons
How might I seek to be more inclusive in the expression of this critique, and invite people (as opposed to 'Universities') to consider an alternative?
Perhaps, "People working in Universities may need to reconsider the nature of the problems they work to solving" gets closer, but now I realise that "People working in Universities" still situates an "other" and even an exclusive right to considering the question.
How about "we"? "We may need to reconsider the nature of the problems our Universities are set to solving"
I realise many will either think all this is just so logical, or even overly picky, but if they know me, they know I am confrontational... perhaps if it is possible for me to use this sort of pacifism, I will find new ways to make more successful change proposals, and even find more peace in my life! Yeah, I know, seems hardly likely.. :)