66b9uk5yPH

Между тем при множестве или, по крайней мере, при разнообразии синтезов, в соотношении с которыми мы себя связываем, только некоторые из них признаются нами в качестве своих.

Кроме того, особо подчеркнем, что связанность человека с определенным местом совсем не обязательно ведет к последующему отождествлению его с присущим этому месту историческим временем. Также и обратно: обретение нами связанности с определенным временем вовсе не обязательно оборачивается непременным отождествлением нас с присущим этому времени историческим пространством. Одно способно вытеснять другое, а также заслонять собой понимание нами своего действительного положения дел.

Но даже если, совершая первоначальный акт различения одного от другого, мы связываем себя именно с чем-то одним и фактически обособляемся от другого, то оказываемся в раздвоенном положении. Дело в том, что мы, отождествили себя с одним и стали на его место, однако самим различением одного и другого мы зафиксировали «возникновение» нового времени, отличного от времени до акта различения. С одной стороны, мы совершили акт различения и осознали разницу между тем, что было, и тем, что стало, однако, с другой стороны, наше время совпало только с одним – теперь уже – нашим местом.

Трудно не заметить, что в этом случае – в нашем положении дел – есть только одно место, и связано оно с нашим актом различения его от другого, как и нашим отождествлением себя именно с одним, тогда как есть два времени. Одно время связано с местом одного, и это – настоящее время, время того, что именно есть и есть сейчас, но ему «предшествует» другое время, связанное с самим действием различения, когда одно отличается от другого как настоящее от прошлого. Настоящее время предстает как укорененное в другом времени – времени прошлого, но, по сути, оно связано с самим актом различения.

Итак, появление границы ведет к удвоению. Там. где было одно, и наряду с ним, появляется другое, посредством чего и то, и другое нуждаются в установлении предела и лимита как в отношении того, что противоположно им самим, так и в отношении самих себя.

Интересно заметить, что появление сознания связано именно с усложнением жизни. Сознание можно считать удвоением жизни: внутри направленности сознания и благодаря этому возникают некие объекты, которые поддерживаются силой такого сознания. Без энергии сознания такие объекты распадаются. Причем, энергия сознания одного человека может поддерживаться не только энергией его сознания, но и энергией других людей. Важно то, что энергия сознания «образует» и «держит» такие объекты – объекты сознания. И пока есть она, есть и они.

10

Есть действие, а есть иное – отношение к этому действию. Возникновение такого отношения свидетельствует о появлении сознания. Действие, рассматриваемое и понимаемое в своей связанности с отношением, позволяет заметить, помимо действия, присутствие сознания: теперь уже, когда это произошло, действие может пониматься как

событие.

События «происходят» в измерении отдельных сознаний: события связаны с сознанием отдельных людей в различении этих людей и различении событий друг от друга. Отдельное событие переживается в отдельном сознании и отдельным сознанием: для других людей этого события может не быть и, скорее всего, нет, а если оно и есть, то оно присутствует в сознании другого человека как факт его сознания.

Посредством сознания мы устанавливаем отношение к своему существованию, чем отличаем себя – осознающего от себя – действующего. При встрече с сознанием нам «мало» нашего существование, каким бы отлаженным оно ни было: в перспективе осознанного восприятия нашей жизни непосредственному и спонтанному существованию приходит конец. Жизнь теперь уже может и должна рассматриваться в ракурсе присутствия в ней сознания, т.е. рассматриваться как осознаваемая жизнь.

Фактичность сознания, вводимая в фактичность жизни,

связанную с областью действий, позволяет различить и выявить внутри нее то, что потом можно соединить уже в другом – новом и усложненном – варианте. Речь идет о введении мысли в то, что первоначально действовало без нее и само собой, но теперь уже функционирует только в единстве с сознанием.

Сознание является процедурой различения одного от другого: сознающий указывает на нечто как на то, что без сознающего не могло бы существовать. Странность такой ситуации состоит в следующем: для того, чтобы нечто было, оно должно быть отделено от остального и удостоверено сознанием. Мир «устроен» так, что позволяет нам выделять и удостоверять разное. Причем, каждый из нас «занимаем» свое место и свое время, а взаимодействие людей не приводит к утрате этих особенных мест и времен. Если горизонт восприятия разных людей совпадает, то такие люди – посредством общих фактов сознания – приобщаются друг к другу, образуя некое целое.

Форма – это то, что «содержит» разное в единстве. Иначе говоря, форма осуществляет совместное держание разного. Внутри формы все соотносится между собой на основе определенного тождества, тогда как сама форма отличается от другой формы, являющейся другим континуумом, выстроенным путем другого отождествления.

11

Замечая различия разных форм, мы, в первую очередь, стремимся выделять тождества путем сходства и уподобления. Без таких действий в нашей жизни нет устойчивости. Однако целое – в отличие от общего, формирующегося в результате действия отождествления, – «включает» в себя как само действие различения, так и то, что «находится» по обе стороны границы. Целое – парадоксально. Оно допускает внутри себя всё, т.е. допускает и «то», и «другое».

Специфика каждой отдельной формы связана с особым логическим тождеством: именно особенный логический план позволяет соотнести и совместить вместе отдельные элементы как нечто целое, отличая его от другого целого. В зависимости от того, какое логическое тождество мы имеем в виду, можно говорить о разных логиках. Так, например, действие различения в отношении прошлого может осуществить именно настоящее. Форма времени, позволяет совместить то, что было, с тем, что есть. Вместе с тем настоящее и прошлое – это разные логические планы, разные логические тождества, две разные логики.

Человек последовательно идет на различение себя настоящего, когда он уже осознает свои действия, и себя прошлого, который только действовал, в результате чего он уже сталкивается в границах своей жизни не только с силой действия, но и с силой осознания таких действий. Это позволяет ему обрести определенную степень свободы от необходимости обязательного отождествления себя исключительно с действием.

Настоящее время обладает странным характером: настоящее, как оно есть, выходит за рамки каждого момента своего дления. Как то, что есть, оно оказывается присущим каждому моменту времени, но также и превышает его. Вероятно, можно сказать, что такое «превышение» непосредственно связано с нашим присутствием, из которого собственно и осуществляется действие различения. Однако принять неустранимость настоящего и жить настоящим довольно трудно: человеку легче допустить то, что настоящее принципиально может быть скомпрометировано и отменено, и в этом случае он склонен отказываться от него. Но теряя настоящее, он лишается и прошлого. Более того, он лишается при этом всего.

12

УДК 1(091) ББК 87.3

J.S. Methi

Nord University

Bodø, Norway

STAY IN THE EXPERIENCE!

LEARNING – EXPERIENCE – KNOWLEDGE

Abstract. The article considers some issues of constructing a productive learning system based on practical knowledge. The author focuses on many years of teaching experience in the joint Russian-Norwegian master program “Borderology.”

Key words: experience, practical knowledge, borderology, activity, cognition.

Я.С. Мети

Северный университет г. Буде, Норвегия

ОСТАВАЙТЕСЬ В ОПЫТЕ! ОБУЧЕНИЕ - ОПЫТ - ЗНАНИЕ

Аннотация. Статья рассматривает некоторые вопросы построения продуктивной системы обучения с опорой на практическое знание. Автор фокусируется на многолетнем опыте преподавания в совместной российсконорвежской мастер программе «Границеведение».

Ключевые слова: опыт, практические знания, границеведение, деятельность, познание.

The education of professional workers had since early 1970s undergone an extensive academical change in Norway. From 1994 most of the education had become a part of the higher education. The strong connection to the practice field that had been a label for the traditional professional education, was about to be radically changed. As a result, we could observe that educated professional workers got what we call a practice shock as their first working experience. Slowly by slowly they adapted to the rules, regulation and understanding that existed in the field of practice. This challenged their professionalism.

As a reaction to this observation, a small group of people from different Scandinavian countries started to work out how this practice shock could be met by building up a master program for professional workers with long working experience. This work was led by an academic staff connected to Bodø Regional

University. They focused on how knowledge develops in the tension between theory the workers have with them and practice field reaction to the workers implementation of their theory. This was called the field of practical knowledge.

13

The master program in practical knowledge was implemented in 2000 and was later supplied with a joint degree program in Borderology in 2011 run by Nord University and Murmansk Arctic State University.

In this report I will show how practical knowledge, and later borderology, as a research field has developed after 2000. I will show how the concept of border and border zone can be a productive concept specially connected to the dialectic between inner and outer ontology. In order to build up a functional theory, I will show how important it is to stay in the experience and focus on the materiality as a solid ground for abstraction.

I will start with a story told by one of my PhD-student during our course in philosophy of science. My student is a teacher and she has collected her data from interviews of teachers working in secondary schools. From her data I got this story:

“Martin is a teenager given up by the regular school. But he’s taken in at one alternative school and has got a teacher who he meets in different ‘classrooms.’ This day they are in a room that are called ‘the garage.’ Martin has brought the moped into the workshop, red and shiny. Well taken care of. The teacher and Martin walk around the bike, admire it, talk about it. Remove something from it, move a little on a pedal, feel the brake, stroke the seat. Martin is clearly proud. He says he drives with his friends, in the afternoons, on the weekends. But his friends have bigger bikes. They could drive faster than him. They have 125 cubic, he says. Min is only 50 cubic. The teacher nods, mumbles something compassionate. Martin holds a little. Turns to the teacher; You, what exactly is cubic? Thus it is done. The teacher at the workshop can do his math. So he breathes and starts to explain, about how much a 50 cubic cylinder contains inside and how to figure it out, and what kind of significance it has in terms of speed.” (2015)

This pupil quickly learned what cubic in relation to speed is. But, by the school, considered as unsuitable to follow ordinary teaching. What can already be said alone through this example is the following: If this student was able to learn what cubic is through conditions other than those given in the traditional teaching, then it is the conditions of the traditional teaching that is the problem, not the student.

In all scientific work, a foundation must be created in order to give the scientific processing a starting point. This can be provided in many ways; interview, observation, literature, or as in the case of practical knowledge also through own stories about life and working experience. The differences between these data sources, interviews, observation etc. and own narrative is easy to spot. In the narrative it is the researcher himself who sets the premises for what will be the object for investigation. In the other cases, there is a relationship between the researcher and something outside the researcher who set the premises. Even

14

though the data material is linked with the researcher's self-understanding in a number of conditions that include: choice of informants, choice of position, focus among others in an observation, and finally the choice of literature, if a purely theoretical research work is to be carried out. This shows that the researcher himself is impossible get rid of. The data material shows something which exist. Put in another way: in both cases, in the data material the ontology emerges. The special thing about the story from own experience, is that it is the researcher's inner ontology that emerges through the narrative. The question is not whether this can be the subject of a scientific investigation by the researcher himself, but how. In the scientific language, method is not a question of right or wrong, true or false, but good or bad (Enerstvedt 2011: 32).

In the case of using own experience for exploring new knowledge, one can say that the narrative is the appearances of the inner ontology. The relationship between the inner and the outer ontology is what interests us here. What is the relationship?

At the Center for Practical Knowledge, the methodology used to develop knowledge of one's own experience gets the term essay as a critical testing method. So it's not the right or wrong method, but good or bad. Looking at this from a philosophy of science perspective, the essay touches all four levels one expects to be used in the scientific writing:

-The ontological level: The same cannot and at the same time both belong to and do not belong to the same (true - not true).

-The epistemological (cognition, gnoseological) level: Two contradictory statements cannot together be true (right – wrong, correct – crazy). This is a logical law.

-The methodological level: Two contradictory statements should not at the same time be valid (good – bad). This is a logical rule. The object language of logic is the logical laws. The rules of logic say how it should be done not to break these laws. The rules state which conclusions are valid and which are invalid.

-The Critical Level: True understanding (proper thinking, good method) is needed to maintain life. (Ibid.)

It is important to emphasize that the distinction between these levels can only be made analytically. They intervene in each other. In essay as a critical investigating method, the narrative forms the ontological level. It is the data that claims something about reality. Here it will be true or false statements. The reflections, which follow or weave into the narrative, constitute the epistemological level. Here it is not the claims of reality that are at the center, but whether the inferences based on the premises are correct or wrong. This process is often very demanding for students as this challenge their logical

15

capacity. At the methodological level, students must think about what the survey they are conducting is valid for. What can they say about what they see growing out of their own experience. For example, they cannot say anything about everyone within a category when they relate only to their own (or few others) experiences. On the other hand, they can comment on something essential, something exemplary or something common based on their investigation. The critical level emerges through an overall assessment of whether the survey is in the social context the experience derives from. This is a meta-perspective, a philosophical consideration, which often also puts the survey into a social perspective.

Our experience from Borderology and Practical knowledge is that when students go deep into their own experience and use the narrative as a well for developing new knowledge, they often experience what we call a Copernican change. This doesn´t mean that they throw away their first experience. They build on it and exceed the truth in it.

Great works have been written on such changing processes. One of the most famous and significant is the work of Galileo Galilei Dialogues over two world systems (1632). Aristotelian Simplissio is challenged by Sagredo and Salviati to move from the ptolemaic worldview to the heliocentric. Finally, and not without cognitive pain, Simplissio realizes that it is also possible to see the sun as the center of the solar system. Of course, changing an entire world view is something other than admitting that one is wrong in an everyday affair. However, the same processes lie behind the exceeding cognition. The psychic activity is the same. Is there anything of more high-quality in an academic tradition than realizing and admitting that you have been wrong? This is how our student is following a good tradition.

It is important to emphasize that our students are in a more complicated process than what is usual. The normal is to be in a disciplinary academic course, or in professional education with periods of practice. Our students are mostly 100% in work and come to the university for short periods of time for their academic activities. They are in their work practice while writing about their experiences from the same practice. It is not difficult to see that the interaction between practice and theory is the opposite of that taking place in the traditional courses. Our students are continuously challenged from their own field, which also does something about the field. The understanding of the field changes. In 2014 I wrote this about the interaction:

“It is a process of creation in which the nature of the phenomenon also changes. When students and others begin to process their stories, not only does the original form and content of the narrative change, the field in which the narrative is related changes at the same time. This is no change back to something that was, it is a change to something that becomes. This process of

16

change happens all the time, unconsciously as consciously and is an objective and natural part of what is called in the Activity theory the human metabolism process with nature” (Methi 2015: 134).

This is what Russel Hanson means by his famous quotation “seeing as” and “seeing that”. The whole process of Essay as a critical investigating method is to go from seeing as to seeing that, which in Russel Hanson`s words is seeing more. That is why the student’s perception of the working-field also changes.

Here we approach the point in this article. It would now be easy to see that the students “are in the experience” in two ways. First, they bring an experience into the university, materialized through a story. At the same time they publish it and make it available to others. This challenge the substance of the experience and leads to a new version of the story. The narrative must be told again. At the same time, the story is taken into the daily work practice, and by that challenged again. This dual interaction does something with the students' self-awareness. Much is at stake and much is changing at the same time.

I want to show that what happens to our student (and Simplissio) in the above case is closely linked to the formation of practical knowledge and borderology. If we base ourselves on the principle that there is learning in everything we do, and that there is at the same time a conscious learning form that can be called conscious motivated self-change (motivated learning), we will find that there is an unconscious and a conscious formation process that can be expressed in this way:

Abduction – Analysis – Synthesis – Abstraction – Generalization (Enerstvedt 2011: 74).

The key word here is abduction. When Charles Sanders Pierce held his famous lectures at Harvard University in 1903, he showed that only through abduction can the new arise. It’s the science spell. Neither induction nor deduction can produce anything new (Pierce 1997: 218). Pierce also says that the abductive inference comes to us as a “flush.” We can also say that what we call intuition, a moment of realization is an abductive inference. Pierce expresses it this way:

“The surprising fact, C, is observed;

But if A were true, C would be a matter of course.

Hence, there is a reason to suspect that A is true.” (Ibid.: 231)

Next I will highlight the example of the pupil and the moped. In my opinion, the Menon dialogue should be a compulsory curriculum in all educational activities. It is obvious that the school in which the pupil was attending had neither the Menon dialogue nor Vygotsky included in its theoretical basis work before the pupil was given up by the school and placed in

17

so-called customized training. What is it that makes this pupil after his moped experience in a condition to master how much volume, cubic and power is in this workshop? If one is given up by the school, one is almost defined as unable to learn anything theoretically.

There were two very important issues that were present in the workshop, that were not present during ordinary class that formed the basis for his relocation. The teacher had probably seen the motivation in the pupil’s eyes that he was eager learn and understand what cubic is. The pupil was highly motivated. The second was that the pupil brings with him an experience that the teacher intuitively understands will form the basis for abstracting to the scientific concept of volume (cubic). Many will call what happened in the workshop for a practical learning form. It will be completely wrong. What the pupil does, is to a great extent an advanced theoretical work, and here theory and practice go hand in hand. What is lacking, not only in primary school, but also in universities and colleges, is to check out whether the material basis (and motivation) is present before attempting to introduce scientific concepts. It is said in many contexts that 25% of the pupils who leave primary school are

“functional illiterate”. A functional illiterate is one that know the term but cannot use or understand it. They can read and write, but do not necessarily understand what they are reading and writing. One of the reasons may just be that the material basis of abstraction has not been present. Then insight into the necessary subject matter is not formed.

This is what I think is the central message in expression “stay in the experience.” It is necessary, but not sufficient, to establish a materiality before an abstraction can be made. When our students stay in their own experience for as long as possible before bringing in theoretical tools, they are building the necessary materiality that abstraction and theorization arise from. Staying in the experience means to deliberately build the ontological foundation from which the cognition is to come, the method to investigate and the essay to critically examine.

To illustrate how this process is working I have made a model. It must be understood as a model and not the truth. It is easy to understand that what we see and judge as reality is based on our perception, how our senses work together on what we view and understand. Our perception must be understood in a phylogenetic – ontogenetic and individual – collective perspective. The way I see and judge what reality is, is not exactly but very much the same as people close to me see it when it comes to the basic line. There are differences, but according to the model below, no one sees, views and judges the outside world exactly the same way. Based on the activity theory we can explain with the fact that no one participate exactly in the same and in the same way in activities. We cannot be the other.

18

Interaction =

How is this inner ontology formed? In the perspective of borderology, pracrical knowledge and Activity theory we must look into some basic concepts. These are human activity, experience, learning, knowledge and understanding.

The symbol for the concept “human activity” is in English not a good expression. The original word was the German word “Tätigkeit”. In the Scandinavian languages the word “virksomhet” is used. In English there is only the word activity that has been used. In order to express the same as “Tätigkeit” and “virksomhet” the expression “human acrtivity” can be used. This is to separate human activity form other specie’s activity. Human activity is always goal oriented and social. For human beings there is no such thing as completely individual activity. A “robinsonade” does not exist. We always use words, concepts and tools created as a result of collective human activity. In one way or another the activity is social. Whatever we do create an experience in the broad sense. Here I will use Kant’s definition on experience. In Kritik der reinen Vernunft he defines experience as “an empirical cognition” (Kant 2009: 255).

This means a cognition that determine an object or circumstances by virtue of observation. Experience again has a common understanding of being connected to what has been learned from what has been observed or encountered through an activity. But the concept of learning is a more complex and more difficult concept. Here I will base my understanding of the concept on Enerstvedt’s work “Hva er læring?” (What is learning?). In this work he concludes that learning in the broadest sense is “(…) a system’s own information activity which product is the change of the system’s activity that follows from its own information activity,” or only: “learning is self-change as a result of the system-oriented information activity” (Enerstvedt 1986: 130). This definition is what he calls learning as a universal human act which means that we learn from/in everything we do. But learning can also be done deliberately. We can want to change. This what Enerstvedt calls motivated learning. Self-change is the goal. The activity which include motivated learning is what he later in his work calls learning activity. This leads to an understanding that teaching (education) can be learning activity, but it does not have to. The main activity does not have to contain a

19