from I.E wel2 to turn, to roll, waltz, welter,
welt, wale & walk –all kin & all in the family
as well as revolve and oh: evolve!
(womb, too, vulva & Volvo volume & voluble:
all relative, related to turning and rolling.)
For the sake of possible sustainable argument
over our develop mental studies and leadership
programs (how to waltz, welter, welt, wale,
revolve and oh! evolve!), I propose we might
distinguish, separate and polarize 3 kinds of
faculty development—and then consider
the nature of their relays, ratios, & relationships.
(amo amare: you know the origins)
PROFESSIONAL development probably goes with
out saying or do I have to spell this out? Refereed
publications, workshops and conferences, panels and
seminars some where else, beefing up the resume in
case things don’t go well here got to have a Vita, get a
life hard copy & not to be sneezed at…
plus on another “level” all together
2 kinds of FACULTY development: cultivating one’s
individual faculties on the one hand and on the other:
aggregate agri-collective faculty growth-as-whole &
I’d call the 2: growing local food & food back:
local Environ Mental Literacy.
Any one could improve my terms & images here, &
I wish you would but I think these distinction are good
and useful worth turning up and putting in play.
Otherwise they are easily collapsed, conflated, and confused:
Professional IndividualCollective Development
as all the same: one big work work work program in the
Spirit of Professionalism: always the dominant pair of dimes.
True? Need we argue?
I’d say the 3 are radically incommensurate.
Like wise: Individual Faculty Growth and Collective
FACULTY: not the same. It’s the difference between
personal and collective (collaborative)
which we are probing & exploring in Dialogue & Dialectic
class: turning up the agon and the agony between the
development of part and partial on the one hand, and
Parcel and The-Whole-That’s-Always-More-Than
the sum-of-parts on the other hand….
You can maybe see how I need help with this.
This, here: what I’m talking about—trying to
spell IT out. I’m asking for it:
Collaborative genius vs. Individual genius reminds
me of something Mr. Cobb was telling us about:
promotes/encourages movies about
One man or woman, an individual with genius,
drive, determination, principle, who takes up
a cause, rallies the less inspired masses
around him/her and onward to
Norma Ray, Erin Brokovich, Ghandi,
but there are many other examples.
On the other hand,
perhaps even actively discourages, movies about
People: Just people getting together and changing
things without the inspiration of some great leader.
I believe Mr. Cobb was suggesting this as a
deliberate tactic for social control,
discouraging collaborative genius,
advertising individual genius as
the only hope for progressive
organization and action.
Assuming this to be true,
what is so scary about
Call for Peepers.
Professional & Amateur.