I have enjoyed reading Davis’ Inventions of Teaching so far. I can appreciate his progression from simple
to more complex, as he investigates what we in the Western world call
teaching. I think that his two visuals,
the darker to lighter shades blocks and the black/white Venn diagram help give
a clear explanation of dichotomization and bifurcation. To my understanding, Davis explains dichotomization
as accentuating the differences and separating ideas. I believe that he ties the idea of dichotomization
to the metaphysical perspective, which based on Plato and Aristotle,
categorizes nature as either ideal (or perfect) or flawed and always striving
toward perfection (“catness” for cats).
His explanation of bifurcation, on
the other hand, seems to focus on sameness or interconnectedness, which ties-in
to Davis’ use of the genealogy tree. I
think that the adaptation of the genealogy metaphor is cleaver and inviting
(Who doesn’t love a family tree diagram?).
I’d even like to refer to it as a family tree metaphor in consideration
of Davis’ viewpoint that our ideas about teaching are interconnected like a
tree’s branches. It also provides our
Western eyes with an alternative to a linear explanation of our thoughts on teaching
Returning to the idea of dichotomization
and bifurcation, I was impressed by Davis’ progression from these terms to
metaphysical and physical and later to Darwin’s ideas on evolution. Did anyone get feel that Davis was at any
point labeling those who esteem the metaphysical as ‘wrong’? I did not.
Instead, I have a new interest in reading some primary sources of
Darwin. (At this point, I’ve only read
secondary Darwin sources, and most have been anti-Darwin). Without calling Davis a Darwinist, I’m
impressed by his metaphor of our views and labels of teaching as having evolved
from a common place.
It seems to me that Davis wants his
readers to be critically conscious, in line with Freire, and ask ourselves the
question: “How can we improve our teaching, and why do we persist with an ancient
plan for education and still call it teaching here in the twenty-first
century? I hope that I’m somewhere close
to hearing what he’s trying to say. Any thoughts? I’m eager to read the rest of the book.
Reginald I feel your post is a nice summary and observation of Davis' book thus far. I agree that Davis was not labeling those who esteem the metaphysical as wrong... and I too liked the Darwinism thinking especially in the striving to be the perfect "cat" or "person." I think that Davis summed up the metaphysical vs the physical well when he said, "As far as matters of formal education are concerned, perhaps the most important issue that arises in the separation of metaphysically oriented theories from physically oriented theories is the contrast in attitudes toward development and change..... In evolutionary frames, change is understood more in terms of biological unfolding than linear trajectories." I think that Davis was trying to point out the Western World’s lack of taking learning into almost an evolutionary spiraling of knowledge, than simply the next idea only gets derived from the one previously taught without any consideration of past knowledge and experience, (linear trajectory). I think that this idea forces us to look back on a learner’s culture much in the same way that Bruner suggested.
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest I have found Davis’ book much more easy to understand, and the idea of education/learning as a tree with many branches helps me understand the better intertwining of all these different aspects that must work together for knowledge to be gained. So far in my reading I love the way that Davis covers some of the same basic ideas but with terms that really highlight just a little bit of difference. The family tree as Reginald mentioned being a great metaphor for the ideas about teaching I couldn’t agree with more. With this metaphor I see metaphysical being the parent of gnosis and episteme where physical is the parent of intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. I like the way Davis brings back concepts and almost overlaps some of the ideas of teaching. Much like Reginald I am excited to finish this book.
I appreciated Davis' explanation of gnosis and episteme. It is amazing to me to see specific different ways knowledge can be broken down and described. I like the way Davis seems to think that even though episteme has eclipsed gnosis in modern day Western World view that gnosis is still seen in religious explanations, fables, myths, etc. It seems to me that Davis is trying to show that gnosis and episteme are almost opposites of each other where gnosis is used in art and mystical interpretations episteme is more concrete and literal of solving of real world problems. Davis said, "Whereas gnosis points toward wisdom and ethical action, episteme points to the rational and pragmatic competencies that enable us to function well in the physical world. As a mathematician I enjoyed the reference to Descartes and found it interesting that Davis gives Descartes credit for "helping initiate a broad transformation in sensibility popularly referred to as the epistemological turn, wherein espisteme not only shifted out of balance with gnosis, but came to be seen as sufficient in and of itself." Even though Davis states that, "not only has episteme eclipsed gnosis as the privileged means by which we come to know, it has hijacked the term," I feel that through his writing Davis still holds on to the idea that both gnosis and episteme are important in knowledge and learning. In my personal opinion I feel that one would only benefit from both gnosis and episteme knowledge and that by looking into oneself it would be impossible to learn from strictly an episteme perspective, does anyone agree or disagree?
ReplyDeleteIn my earlier response to Reginald I said that I felt like metaphysical was the parent of gnosis and episteme and physical was the parent of intersubjectivity and interobjectivity...I would (without taking the "family tree" too far) say that gnosis and intersubjectivity would be cousins where episteme and interobjectivity would be cousins. It seems at least to me that Davis shows that, "this idea that all knowledge is a matter of social interaction and accord- of intersubjectivity- is of course a response to the metaphysical assertion that 'knowledge is out there'.... what is knowledge if it is not an intuition, a reflection, or a glimpse into some eternal, transcendent realm." This to me ties back into the gnosis knowledge except the drive behind intersubjectivity seems to be different. Both intersubjectivity and interobjectivity seem to be a step past the movement of gnosis and episteme and driven by the movement of naturalism. Instead of using just gnosis to pass down a myth, religion, or fable or episteme to explain an everyday way to complete a task, intersubjectivity and interobjectivity are driven by more abstract knowledge. For example I would see the later two in explaining why the moon is only seen at certain times of the month. Where this is not a question that may affect a persons daily life it is a knowledge that is long for, for no other reason than to just know and understand better. Davis says that, " the notation of interobjectivity entails a shift in the figurative devices used to describe the universe." I am truly intrigued by the intertwinings of Davis' book. Did anyone else pick up on the relationships between gnosis and intersubjectivity and episteme and interobjectivity?
Intersubjectivity, in my mind, can also be related to Freire and Brunner’s push for cultural consciousness in the classroom. I think that they would agree that “knowledge is out there”. I also believe that they would reject the behaviorist model, as mentioned in the article by Wilson and Peterson. Behaviorism, as I understand it to this point, seems to be rooted in, as Davis puts it, “…the nativist idea of inborn and unchanging potentialities” (Davis 96). I get a sense that I’m stretching a bit too much as I try to make sense of it. Does anyone else see any connections (or disconnections) with Freire and Brunner or Wilson and Peterson?
DeleteReginald,
DeleteI agree that Davis encourages his readers to be critically conscious, as Freire advocated to improve our teaching. It seems like schooling today is missing gnosis that Freire would include so that teaching becomes less linear in one direction (teacher to student) but bidirectional in which the teacher and students learn from each other.
Reginald,
DeleteIn my opinion Davis is trying to make his readers conscious about What is it that we believe about teaching? and How is it that we came to think this way? As a educators those two questions should be the main focus of our teaching philosophy and practice. At the same time, he invites us to examine over time the changes in our views of teaching and learning because because they are always in constant evolution
While I don’t see a direct parallel in terms, I can also see a connection between gnosis V episteme, mentioned in chapter three, and intersubjectivity V interobjectivity mentioned in chapter ten. It seems that both gnosis and intersubjectivity both tend toward a social construct of knowledge, whereas episteme and interobjectivity lead more toward a data or statistics driven knowledge. While both intersubjectivity and interobjectivity seem to move away from the metaphysical toward the physical, it seems that intersubjectivity is more closely related to the environmental metaphor and that interobjectivity leans more toward the ecological metaphor used by Davis in chapter ten. Davis asserts, “The term [environment] is rooted in a sense of separation and enclosure, not relationship and implication. Ecologists worry about webs of interconnections within particular systems whereas environmentalists tend to be concerned with their surroundings, which points to a non-interobjective view” (Davis 103).
ReplyDeleteUpon first (and second) reading, it appears that intersubjectivity V interobjectivity share more than they differ. I see the prefix ‘inter-‘ as a rejection of dependence on the ‘outer-‘, as in the ‘meta-‘ or divine. I think the focus, for us, however, should be the modern implications that these schools of thought have on our current education systems. According to Davis, it seems that the Darwinian break from the metaphysical toward a deeper investigation of the physical is the initiator of the intersubjectivist V interobjectivist discission. When I think of the sciences, I don’t first thing of the social sciences (more aligned with gnosis), such as sociology and phycology. Instead, I think of the natural (or biological) sciences (more aligned with episteme) that seem to be more data driven (biology, geology).
As I understand it to this point, Davis wants to shed light on how our views of nature (the physical and the metaphysical) affect our attitudes toward teaching. I have to confess, however, that the most intriguing aspect of the book is, as I perceive it, Davis’ playfulness as author. When I was in elementary and middle school, I remember reading through those ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ books that let you jump from chapter three to chapter eight, or even start in chapter five. I think Davis was writing with people like me (who tend to wander in thought) in mind when he wrote, “Those elaborations are not essential to the discussions that follow, so you may move directly to chapter 2.” He later invites the reader to move from chapter two to either three or ten.
ReplyDeleteI really do think that this freedom to move about in the text is related to Davis’ them of interconnectedness of terms and his interest for etymology. I think it’s interesting how Davis breaks-down the original meaning of ‘versus’ and then converts it into a branch-shaped symbol to represent, as he states, “…turning, bending, or winding, not fragmenting”. I also think he had wanderers like me in mind when thought to add the growing (or withering) tree at the bottom of the odd numbered pages, starting in chapter two. Yes, I’ve flipped through it a couple of dozen times, both forward (growing) and backward (withering). Has anyone notice other unique aspects of form from Davis? I’m probably not seeing all of the playfulness in the book, so if anyone spots more examples, please share.
This is not a book that will tell us what to do (as a teacher) but rather a very philosophical. However, we can not have philosophy without practice, and we cannot have practice without philosophy. Don't you think?
ReplyDeleteDavis does a wonderful job of capturing how historically the philosophies of thought have developed along the concepts of teaching, learning and knowing. It is fascinating to see how the ideas in education can be traced back to the old philosophical questions of the nature of the universe. I like the way he interplay the nature of the three main concepts into branches, because it appears that each branch is different from the other pieces.
Davis points out that Gnosis/Episteme are not separate with a slash, which separates the two and puts them into a dichotomous type relationship, but rather they are separated with a V (Gnosis V Episteme) which suggest that a bifurcation has happened. The difference may appear to be small, but it is important to remember that as philosophies of knowing, learning and teaching evolved and changed, many of the basic assumptions from the bottom of the tree remain at the top. Am I to philosophical also? I'm just think aloud and trying to make sense of what l'm reading. Please correct me, if I'm going in a wrong direction.
Maru,
DeleteI agree that Davis does capture how the philosophies of knowledge and learning have developed. I personally enjoy the history of the theories and it helps me to better understand where these different ideas have come from. I think that Reginald nailed Davis when he said "Davis' playfulness as an author." I agree that I enjoy reading the book in a non linear format, and that each chapter almost stands alone even though it has reference to other chapters.
Maru I would say you are correct that the Gnosis V Episteme is a burification... it seems to me they have meshed and it would be hard to have either one solely on their own. I know that Davis referenced Episteme taking over Gnosis but I still see multiple ways Gnosis is represented in our present culture.
I definitely think Gnosis V Episteme are a bifurcation. Davis mentions bifurcation involves partiality which to me implies a slight overlap or shades of grey that can join the two. I feel like inspiration comes from gnosis which is the passion and direction for one to learn the "everyday know-how" to learn a skill or become competent in a career." It seems like life is balance of being and doing. Teaching and learning need to be balanced to integrate gnosis V episteme to help empower teachers and students to become fully human.
DeleteDavis is one of my favorite authors. Davis' tree is useful and helps organize the concepts he talks about dealing with the metaphysical (episteme and gnosis) and the physical (interobjectivity and intersubjectivity). I enjoyed reading about dichotomy (at least two mutually exclusive separate parts, differences) and bifurcation (branching, sameness and shared assumptions). On page 8 Davis shows a Venn diagram of dichotomy as two circles (of opposites) which do not intersect. On page 9 he draws a 'Y' with the trunk to demonstrate bifurcation. I am wondering if a bifurcation could also be drawn as a Venn diagram with two circles that intersect each other such as circle A intersects with circle B and the area of intersection is A and B. What do you think?
ReplyDelete