Yes, I agree it is behavior under stimulus control...we shouldn't ignore the existential grounding. The "let's just care....", etc. response is itself an approach, and an ideologically loaded assumptive framework that would be rejected by the Master. But then the master asked for words of relevance and rejects them all. I agree that a correct response is grounded praxis; deal with the given. Like the master dealing with his/her students openly, and honestly, and sharing presumptive ideas about each other's role, he embraces and even laughs at their common humanity....and flunks their asses when they don't measure up to standards set by their relationship.
G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Michael Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes no response is just "no response". Especially if one isn't > really paying attention but making believe that one is. What assumptions > does a "master" make about the disciples behavior in the story below > and how does anyone truly know what is in another's heart? > If all we have is behavior, any assertions about internal states are mere > speculation. See Skinner. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > ----------- Original Message ----------- > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:49:43 -0800, Louis E. Schmier wrote: > > A Zen master held up a flower for his disciples to see and asked them > to say one word of relevance--just one word--about it. The disciples vied > with > each other to outdo each other to come up with something profound as a > demonstration of their insight and the extent of his learning. They offered > names, symbols, emotions, descriptions, caricatures, metaphors, images, > analogies. One disciple said nothing. He just looked intensely at the > flower, nodded, and smiled. And, the master nodded in return as he, too, > smiled, for that disciple was the most learned of all the disciples. > > And, do you understand why the silent, smiling disciple was the more > learned? The others were naming, typecasting, labeling, judging, choosing, > selecting, limiting, grading, rating. Each word they threw into the ring > carried with it a host of perceptions, presumptions, assumptions, and > expectations. They were making choices between like and dislike, good and > bad, > ordinary and extraordinary, right and wrong, perfect and imperfect. Every word > they threw out had everything to do about them. Every word they threw out had > nothing to do with the flower. The silent disciple knew what the Master had > held up was just "is," a living entity, and nothing else. What matters is > that > something is and what it is, not what it is called or what people believe > about > it. He was echoing Shakespeare who has Juliet saying, "Tis but thy name that > is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is > nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. > O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any > other name would smell as sweet." We look at something and say, "This is a > flower;" we give it a name, "This is a rose;" we endow it with qualities, "How > beautiful" or "It smells delicious." But, is it a "flower?" Is it a "rose?" > Is it "beautiful" and "delicious?" And that becomes our reality. But, who > says > all this? And, why? > > > Sounds like a bunch of silliness, doesn't it. Let me make a tad more > complicated. Take another something that is. We call it a "dandelion" and it > conjures up inferior images compared to those generated by "rose." Is it > inferior to a rose? Or have we placed them into separate, separated, > limiting, > graded categories which we invented according to our likes and dislikes? But, > what is a dandelion and what do say about it? Find it in a manicured lawn and > we angrily condemned it as a pernicious weed; put it in the hands of a child > and we delight in it as a plaything; and, see it in a forest clearing, we > swoon > over it as a pretty wild flower. It is all of these things and it is none of > them. Are we, then, merely expressing our selective, judgmental tastes, or as > John Locke said, impositions of the mind of man on Nature in a quest for > intelligible order? In reality is what we call "flower" simply "something > that > is," simply intricate and complex, miraculous, without the confining, > valuations, definitions, and names imposed by us? Perception doesn't change > circumstances, it changes the meaning of the facts to us. Our perceptions > are > the result of our dominant experiences and memories, feelings and thoughts > that > have created our presumptions, assumptions, and expectations which, in turn, > show up in our mental, emotional, and physical actions. > > Now, replace "flower," or better yet, "dandelion" with "student." See > how "student" morphs when we say "jock," "Greek," "honors," "non-traditional," > or "probation." What is our reality. What is that person's reality? Does > labelling each person prevent us from having a full experience with each of > them? Does it strip each of them of her or his humanity? Does it turn each > of > them into plastic or silk flowers? Do we know what is happening between the > lines? Do we know of each person's back-beat or stage scenery? As I once > asked long ago, does it put us out of touch with the myriad of human struggles > around us. Do we need in the classroom a more humanizing understanding and > deeper vision of those individuals in there--including ourselves? So, let me > ask you the unspoken question: do you know the neighborhood you're living in? > Do you understand that each of them, no more or less than us, is not > emotionally sterile, that each of them is not a tranquil corpse, Do you know > all that much about each of those people from labels, from appearances, from > behaviors, from performance records, from assessments; from gender, sexual > preference, ethnic background, skin color, religious affiliation? One set of > answers is "You don't know how really diverse it is, so diverse it defies > label, stereotype, and generalization." How much of it is invented? How much > of it is looking with eyes, mind, and heart closed? > > By what criteria, then, do we answer those questions? How will we > wrestle with the conundrums between dealing with the many and seeing the > individual; between institutional governing and really gritty, eye-to-eye, > first hand, classroom grunt teaching; with ethical ambiguities and messy > compromises; with the complicated questions of economic realities and faculty > self-survival and serving each student? It's important to understand the > problems and challenges are as complex as individual human beings themselves > because we're dealing with human beings we call students, faculty, and > administrators. Nevertheless, we have to have our > informed--informed--reasons > for believing and acting as we do. With what knowledge of each student, as > well as of the latest research on learning, do we respond? According to what > purpose do we select our replying words? Be careful. Your answer, as with > all > but one of the master's disciples, is a window into an inborn attitude; it is > a > mirror of what you believe about students, what perceptions with which you > come > to the table, the extent of your unconditional dedication and commitment to > each student. > > Our focus should be not just on seeing possibilities, but creating > opportunity; and not just on creating opportunities, but on creating an > environment that leads at least the most malleable people on our campus--the > students--to seize opportunities. Our focus should be on creating an > educating, humanizing, and humane institution. The complicated realities > insure that there are no silver bullets, no magic wands, and that helping > people to help themselves is hard. It's a sociological, psychological, > philosophical, and civics lesson wrapped up in one governing and educating > lesson. It's a Rorschach test with different participants seeing what they > want to see. Nevertheless, we still have to be careful. Those answers > determine the extent to which we look or see and hear or listen or are > mindless > or mindful to the truth about an individual student. > > So, I've got a radical idea. Let's look that reality created by > labels, stereotypes, and generalizations right in the eye and deny it. Like > the most learned of the disciples, let's go "label-blind" and > "stereotype-deaf." Let's take and live my Teacher's Oath. Let's just care, > give a damn, believe in, have faith in, be hopeful for, love, support, > encourage without any qualifying ifs, ands, or buts. Let's open the flood > gates and believe each person is a sacred soul and has a unique potential; > that > she or he is an important thread in the fabric of all that is and will be; > and, > that you should teach "all in" with your whole being, using every ounce of > your > creativity. Let's start being the person who is there unconditionally to help > each person help themselves become the person each is capable of becoming. If > you don't, you lose sight of the opportunities before you; you won't have the > will to seize opportunities; and you won't want or be able to place yourself > in the right place at the right time with the right stuff. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b&n=T&l=tips&o=22294 > or send a blank email to > leave-22294-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22298 or send a blank email to leave-22298-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
