PPM50 is read in the studio of WRHU wrhu.org, during the recording of the Dead Zone, the show I host and produce on the station, which airs most Sundays from 6-8pm EST. I went for brevity in the recording of PPM50, in part because I'd actually recording about 18mins and was in the midst of a philosophical 'solo' when the recording shut down on me, which happens on occasion. Thus, so as to not have that happen again, I went for brevity, and I think I captured the spirit of the meditation with my reading and with my post-reading commentary, which emphasizes two key points: first, that the Allegory 'teaches' us that learning is initiated, again and again, via paideia, more importantly that paideia is a sudden or spontaneous turning. Spontaneity is key here, and this is why the entirety of the writing experiment that made Being and Learning (the book) is one that is improvisational and moved by the force of spontaneity. The force/power of spontaneity, which is the essence of human freedom, is what I attempting to disclose in my phenomenology of Being and learning. The second point of emphasis in PPM50 is the technique of arranging or arrangement, and here think of music arrangement such as the collaboration of Gil Evans and Miles Davis. I suggest in PPM50 that the Allegory, precisely because of it's evocative quality, demands that it be given alternative arrangements.
Here is the key paragraph highlight that captures both of these two main points from PPM50: "The story ends abruptly with this warning against the liberator, which in effect summarizes the 'welcome' the released prisoner receives upon returning to his old friends. The end is true to form, as the story is structured and moved by sudden and unexpected shifts and changes. If we think through the four parts we recognize that each stage was initiated by and culminated in a sudden shift and change. The essence of the story is located in the spontaneous turning (paideia). So we should not be surprised that upon his return the one who has been released is again disoriented and estranged. He has come full circle with his return to the cave, but he is no longer a cave dweller. The transformation is complete and there is indeed no way for him to properly take up his old place with his new comportment, his new way of 'seeing.' But while we, the 'listeners,' can understand how the story would conclude with the same kind of sudden and unexpected change that initiated the tale, we are not so easily convinced by Plato's way of telling it. The conclusion of the story is truly evocative and calls out for interpretation, and, ultimately, rewriting. Perhaps what it calls out for is an extension, because we want to know what the sojourner's response might be when given the opportunity to tell his version of the story."
Here is the key paragraph highlight that captures both of these two main points from PPM50: "The story ends abruptly with this warning against the liberator, which in effect summarizes the 'welcome' the released prisoner receives upon returning to his old friends. The end is true to form, as the story is structured and moved by sudden and unexpected shifts and changes. If we think through the four parts we recognize that each stage was initiated by and culminated in a sudden shift and change. The essence of the story is located in the spontaneous turning (paideia). So we should not be surprised that upon his return the one who has been released is again disoriented and estranged. He has come full circle with his return to the cave, but he is no longer a cave dweller. The transformation is complete and there is indeed no way for him to properly take up his old place with his new comportment, his new way of 'seeing.' But while we, the 'listeners,' can understand how the story would conclude with the same kind of sudden and unexpected change that initiated the tale, we are not so easily convinced by Plato's way of telling it. The conclusion of the story is truly evocative and calls out for interpretation, and, ultimately, rewriting. Perhaps what it calls out for is an extension, because we want to know what the sojourner's response might be when given the opportunity to tell his version of the story."
3.0 - Fire, fire on the mountain! Back in the studio, recording the Dead Zone, and the 2.0 reading of the original meditation PPM50. "I don't see this work I do in the studio, as inconsistent with the larger project....Being in the seminar room is like being in the recording studio...the dance studio..." Of course it's all on a continuum! That's why the project is called poetic praxis. And on that note I have to share the emergence of the "makers market" and "making" as a euphemism/synonym for "art." I've heard two candidates we've interviewed for positions in my department using that language. They are both profs in teacher ed programs and coincidentally both have a math focus. And yet both are artists! If I had a little more time, or better stated, at some point I'll need to think about organizing a workshop for my Fine Arts Education program based on this "makers" category. I'll get that going when I return from sabbatical and after I've written the Routledge book.
ReplyDeleteDespite once again using "paideia" instead of "periagogē," the key idea from PPM 50 is spontaneity. I believe this idea was introduced in the chapter on Lao Tzu, and if it wasn't it should have been, because spontaneity is the hallmark of the Sage. In PPM 50 I write (and I'm anxious to the point of feeling dread that the error made it into the book!): "The end is true to form, as the story is structured and moved by sudden and unexpected shifts and changes. If we think through the four parts we recognize that each stage was initiated by and culminated in a sudden shift and change. The essence of the story is located in the spontaneous turning (paideia)." I really don't know why I made that category mistake!?!? I suppose I could make the claim that paideia includes periagogē, which is a fundamental characteristic of learning. In other words, without periagogē no paideia. I'm ok with that reasoning. However, what is most important is the emphasis on spontaneity and improvisation, that is the hallmark of the Sage, which is a super heavy category that emerged in the original project, which was designed to go out there, far out there! Part of me would still use that title today, almost counter-culturally as a way to push against the "sage on the stage" red herring that is so often held out as an example of bad practice. And insofar as it is a central category in the history of Eastern philosophy, there is also reason to explore it. However, lately my focus has become increasingly democratic, or, rather focused more on process and what prompts and spurs it along. For example, if improvisation and spontaneity are spurring learning along, and we take those categories seriously, it is never an act of will that produces improvisation. Spontaneity is just that, spontaneous, or "performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus." That's the dictionary defintion, anyway, and I would go a bit further, because for me, spontaneity isn't emerging from within. So contrary to the dictionary definition, I would say that improvisation is indeed stimulated from without, and is a response, or a call, and hence why throughout this project, and certainly at the onset I identified Evocative questions that provoke learning. The evocative calls forth the spontaneous and improvisational response. Call and response, the essence of the jazz jam, which has it's roots in Africa and is a central characteristic of the African diasporic cultural expressions. Spontaneity and improvisation are the hallmark of poetic praxis and the phenomenological response to Being and learning.