We introduced ourselves.
We discussed the spiral nature of learning, vs. the traditional "building block" analogy, and how it applies to the way we've structured the curriculum to talk about:
Time-binding
Scientific Approach
Abstracting and Evaluating (or Behavior Awareness)
Verbal Awareness
Non-Verbal Awareness
We talked about "time-binding" as formulated by Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski coined the term "time-binding" as the distinction which operationally defined the human class of life, as differentiated from the animal class. This critical distinction can be summarized as this:
Only humans have the ability to pass on knowledge, intelligence, learning, etc., such that succeeding generations can build on the labors of prior generations. A son can pick up from where the father left off. The 'tool' which enables this time-binding is language, and our uniquely-human ability to manipulate symbols. We also discussed the implications of time-binding as a standard of ethics. We each thanked someone who has contributed to our own individual development.
We constructed a
timeline of history since 500 B.C., and annotated some of the significant people, events, periods, and discoveries/inventions which reflect time-binding. We interpreted from the timeline that human 'progress' has not been linear - in other words, we have not progressed at a constant rate over the past 2,500 years. Instead, our 'progress' seems to reflect more of an exponential growth curve, which appears to coincide with the widespread application of a more scientific approach beginning around the 17th century.
However, we acknowledged the "two-edged sword" aspect of language; while it has facilitated time-binding, it has also been used and misused to thwart both personal and social advancement.
We talked about what constitutes a "scientific approach", an investigative process in which one:
- confronts some type of question, curiosity, or problem;
- collects data, asks questions, determines facts about the question or problem;
- forms some kind of hypothesis, makes some assumptions, generates some opinions about what the data indicate, etc.;
- develops a test to check out the assumptions, hypothesis, etc.;
- based upon the results of the test, modifies the initial assumptions, hypothesis, beliefs, opinions, etc., while continuing to collect data, refine assumptions, develop new tests, revise theories, etc.
We discussed eight primary differences between a "Pre-Scientific Orientation" and a "Scientific Orientation", as articulated by Wendell Johnson in his book, People In Quandaries.
Milton presented a framework involving four levels of increasing consciousness or awareness:
1) Abstracting - our normal, automatic, unthinking, selecting/rejecting/constructing of those 'things' which we are aware of and that we're concerned with at any point in time; our going-about-our-daily-living mode of "abstracting" (i.e., our 'doing', without our being consciously aware of what we're 'doing')
2) Conscious Abstracting - the mode in which we are consciously aware of what we are doing as we do it (i.e., "I'm driving too fast in this
rain.")
3) Consciousness of Abstracting - the level of awareness in which we acknowledge that we are consciously abstracting, and that there is more
going on than what we're consciously abstracting (i.e., "I'm aware that I'm driving too fast in this rain. And I know there is more I need to be conscious of besides speed.")
4) Executive consciousness - the 'meta'-level consciousness which regulates, monitors, supervises our awarenesses, e.g., "parenting
yourself".
Becoming aware of these different levels of awareness helps us improve our lives and relationships, in that:
a. If you aren't aware of what you want to change, you can't change it;
b. If you want things in your life to change, you have to change the way you think about things;
c. To do this, you have to be aware of *how* you are 'thinking' about things
Milton introduced the notion of "Culturally-Expected Ways of Thinking" (CEWT, pronounced "cute"). From the moment we're born, we are bombarded with words, and we are surrounded by particular cultural structures, books, institutions, television, advertisements, etc. These Instances of CONditioning (or "ICONs") result in our being conditioned, to various degrees, to 'think' in particular ways. These CEWT ways of thinking - when not modulated by our consciousness of abstracting - oftentimes produce undesirable results in our lives. We can drew parallels between our CEWT thinking and the "Pre-Scientific Orientation" thinking.
By contrast, the principles or formulations of general semantics provide us with ways to create more accurate and up-to-date 'maps' of the 'territories' we encounter in our daily living. This way of thinking seems to more closely resemble the attributes of the "Scientific Orientation" thinking. We discussed some of these formulations, and how they apply in 'real life' based on some of our shared personal experiences.
Milton discussed how our ability to improve ourselves (Self-Improvement) can be expressed as a function of our ability to correct ourselves
(Self-Correction), which can be expressed as a function of our awareness of ourselves (Self-Awareness).
Self-Awareness ---> Self-Correction ---> Self-Improvement
We participated in some outdoor awareness experiments-exercises to practice becoming aware of our conscious abstracting, and of our consciousness of abstracting.
We experienced demonstrations with the trapezoidal window and the Benham disc, and recognized that even on non-verbal levels we misevaluate. Our senses often mislead us if we simply believe that what we see is what is there, and what we see is ALL that's there. We also recognized how our personal interactions with "what's going on" differ from everyone else's personal interactions.
We talked about the differences between inferences and 'facts', and discussed factors related to the importance of not overlooking inferences and not acting upon them as if they were 'facts'.
We examined some simple sentences to appreciate that even grammatically-correct sentences may structurally misrepresent what we know about the world around us. Our talking may lead us to confuse what's going on "out there" with what's going on "in here"; for example, "the grass is green" ascribes a quality of "green-ness" to the grass, when in fact the "green-ness" is a function of reflected light off the grass, processed by the observer's unique nervous system.
We reviewed the Structural Differential as a map to help us make distinctions in our evaluations. We discussed why it's important to make the differentiations that:
- what goes on around us is NOT our sensory experience of what goes on;
- what we describe is NOT the same as our sensory experience;
- what we infer or conclude or believe about what we describe is NOT what we described, or experienced, or what happened, etc.
We did an exercise in which we learned how we each "measure" differently, based on our prior experiences, context, available tools, etc. "To measure" in this context can be broadly defined to include other activities such as to: calculate, judge, compare to, criticize, map, define, etc.
And we learned that as we take our own individual 'measures', we do so against unique individual 'standards'. These 'standards' could be described as our beliefs, values, paradigms, goals, plans, predispositions, religious principles, etc.
Milton taught a lesson about calculus, illustrating how we can apply the principles of the calculus to make finer and finer discriminations in our evaluations. We discussed the differences between "micro-mapping" and "gross-mapping".
We had a fun-learning-time-binding time. We did lots of experiments-exercises to help us move from words to experience.
And, of course ... we did more than can be said.
Etc.
