If a Fool Persist in his Folly
He Becomes Wise.
Teaching is even more difficult than learning
because what teaching calls for is this: to let learn.
The real teacher, in fact, lets nothing else be learned
than-- learning. His conduct, therefore, often produces
the impression that we properly learn nothing from him.
(Heidegger, "What Is Called Thinking?")
This kind of talk only makes sense in terms of
“transformative” learning. Need we argue?
I doubt what Heidegger says makes any sense or
applies to the physicist, the chemist, the biologist,
the global studies student and sociologist, the anthro-
apologist, and environmentalist, the literary critic &
commentator, the historian, psychologist, philosopher
-ist & theologist: all of them in their professional
vocational guise: robed in the trade of guilds & crafts:
each devoted to the “practice” of their discipline *
and the chronicles of hire education. .
Heidegger, I claim, is talking Liberal Art, not the
liberal arts. There’s a difference that makes a difference
there and if we can’t draw and sustain the distinction,
then it’s liberalarts all the way down: professionalism
uber alles , white collar vocationalism: careers in
green sustainable environmental multi cultural
carbon footsteps not with standing.
Let me make it perfectly clear if not already obvious:
I am walking on 3 legs at this stage & prefer
foolishness to savvy.
I’ve been there & done that savvy somewhat, and don’t
mean to disparage its popular appeal and common sense
but I aim to speak out of both sides of my mouth at once:
three if I could but that’s impossible unilaterally..
The 3rd side is a ratio (rational, really), between you & me,
dear reader, & I’m totally dependent on the reciprocity of
our relationship which I’d manipulate if I could (my
inner Hitler: totalitarian & hegemonic) but can’t,
damnit, and so: hop, skip, & jump like
Rumpelstiltskin guessing at names.