Joining the evil empire...

...but only because the dark side is more powerful.


Ph.D. Program in Communication at The Ohio State University next year. It was a tough choice, but it looks like OSU is the best place for me. Now it's time to try to understand...


"To understand communication is to understand much more. An apparent answer to the painful divisions between self and other, private and public, and inner and outer world, the notion illustrates our strange lives at this point in history. It is a sink into which most of our hopes and fears seem to be poured." John Durham Peters, Speaking Into The Air.

Some Questions....

1. How do you operationalize (measure) authority, or perceived authority, in health communication? Specifically, how can this be done with communication on nutritional supplements? How do new media affect the authority of health communication?
2. What form of online communication commands the most authority in online health communication? Would it be possible to apply the work of Axel Bruns, who looked at authority as a construct in wiki's, blogs, etc. Are we moving away from the "I'm an expert, so believe me," to a sense of authority associated with online communities?
3. How do different frames and biases of online health communication effect public understanding?

On Beginner's Mind

On weekdays that I don’t have class I like to go home to my parent’s house and hang out with my dog. My parents both work during the day, so my yellow lab Sandy is home alone for 8 hours. I figure she probably gets lonely, so I like to keep her company. She does the same for me.

Sometimes when it’s nice, I’ll go out into the backyard and sit on the steps of my deck to read or do homework. Usually I don’t read or do homework. Instead, I end up sitting there and staring off into space. Sandy always comes and sits down next to me. Together we sit and and think about things; about moving to Greece and working in a cafe, about why colorful leaves falling to the ground can be so beautiful and so calming, about how hours of my life can disappear without notice when I'm just sitting. (I don’t actually know what the dog thinks about.)

An interesting thing happened a few weeks ago as I was sitting outside with Sandy. There was a huge gust of wind and it spooked her. She was startled. She looked around to see where the force came from, turned her head from side to side with an big brown eyes and inquisitive look that sometimes only an old dog can display, and then put her head back down on her paws with furrowed brows. I’m pretty sure a gust of wind blew her mind.

It’s funny how dogs can be so fascinated by the world. She will put her nose to the ground and walk around my backyard for hours just exploring, seeing what there is to be seen. She has no real preconceptions; there are no axioms in her existence. There is only the moment - the smells of the grass, the noise of birds chirping, the feel of my hand as I pet her. She is like a toddler constantly fascinated by the world; she has a beginners mind.

The beginners mind is an idea, I think officially coined in Zen Buddhism, of existing in a completely free state; to be open and eager to see that which the world and ideas have to offer. To have a beginners mind is to be able to notice things as they are - how the air smells so sweet after a spring shower, how the damp leaves stick on to the ground on a foggy fall day, how the horizon glows just as the first stars begin to appear. To have a beginners mind is to find fascination in life itself; it is a realization of how beautiful and strange each moment truly is.

Beginners mind is this mindset in which the best learning can be done. Without preconceptions you are able to notice new things, to see even the finest intricacies – you give yourself no limits. Too often increased knowledge and world experience results in personal barriers being placed, ideas being held too firmly.

My last post talked about creating a phenomenological disruption, a moment of true learning for my students. I think that cultivating the beginners mind in them is part of the same cause, its importance and life-value is just the same. I do not know how to bring them to this place – a place that I believe can only exist for short periods of time. However, I am almost positive of one thing – technology doesn’t help this cause.

Technology by definition is a medium – it takes information, images, and experiences and puts them on a screen. In my own mind I find this analogous to Plato’s own cave analogy: just as those inside the cave only see the shadows of images, of forms, unable to see that which truly is real outside in the light of day – the computer gives us but shadows of reality. I do not believe that we can truly seek, real knowledge, real experience, through a technological medium. It needs to be done through experience, through presence and dialogue. In the of work most philosophers I have read there seems to be a special place where communication, wisdom, and eros all intersect. (How nice it would be to study this for a living.) Though one could take a lifetime to try to consider this, perhaps it is also extremely simple: It takes two. It is only with another that you can seek true knowledge. Wisdom requires there to be dialogue and discussion, perspective and criticism. Yet, this best when the conversation is not limited, when the two entering it are completely comfortable and open, willing to attempt to understand the other, wanting to understand the other - there must be beginners mind. By this understanding, it seems that the type of relationship that is required for two to seek learning is one in which there is love. As Plato says, together two lovers seek wisdom, seek the highest form – that of beauty. One does not seek true wisdom and understanding with a laptop.

Technology is a useful tool. Sure, two can communicate with technology and search for wisdom. However, it is impossibly insignificant in the big picture. The importance lays not in the tools, but in the mindset of people themselves and the relationship between them.

Technology, Phenomenology, a Dead Body, and When Pretty Girls Talk to Me

It was a fine morning as Professor Fahy walked down the street in Morocco. The air was cool and crisp, the street echoed the quiet murmuring of locals who were going about their usual morning rituals, and Professor Fahy was taking it all in. However, the routine morning for the well traveled Professor came to an abrupt end; he stepped on a dead body in the street. Realizing what lay at his feet, Professor Fahy sprinted to the nearest store yelling for them to call 911, call an ambulance, find this man help. The clerk in the store looked at him and shrugged his shoulders. They had no medical system, no way to call for help, no hesitancy when stepping over a dead body in the street. At this moment Professor Fahy had the abrupt and intense realization that the streets he walked, the city he was now in, was far different from his home. Only now did he realize that the whole structure of the society; everything he knew to be a standard and way of life, did not exist here. His own disappeared, the real world appeared. At this moment, he became more aware of the very world he lived in. At this moment Professor Fahy experienced a disruption in the phenomenological experience of the world.

Phenomenology is the philosophical study of moment-by-moment lived experience, and expected lived experience. Simply put, it is the attempt to understand each moment of life experience as a phenomenon. (How can you live life if not in a constant state of awe?) Here’s the sad thing: we tend to get quite accustomed to the life we live. You know that tomorrow you will wake up, eat your Frosted Flakes, go to your cognates, look at espn.com or for new shoes on your laptop during class, sit next to the same person, go out for a beer at the same bar after class with the same people, go home and do the usual busy work and fight with imovie for an hour, then go to sleep after watching Letterman. I bet you can go through a day without even realizing it. Humans are creatures of habit; we tend to find a comfortable way to go through life and stick to it. However, there are moments when everything we know to be, everything we expect, gets disrupted. When this moment occurs our eyes are opened; the world and our experience of it recreates itself in a matter of seconds. I think these are moments of enlightenment, moments of true learning. These are phenomenological disruptions – instances when we truly realize that every second of existence is strange and beautiful; it is in only in our search for and perception of meaning that we are the phenomenal exception to the universe.

The best learning comes when a student's expected lived experience is disrupted. This can happen on a number of different scales – whether it be traveling to a foreign country (no dead body required) or sitting through an eye-opening lesson (though you will experience few of these in your life, yet hopefully teach many.) Here’s the thing though – I don’t think this can be done in a mediated environment. I don’t think that we can significantly alter a student’s perception of the world through the use of the Internet or other technology.

Today we are conditioned against letting media significantly affect our lives. First of all, we are brought up with media only being considered entertainment – from Sesame Street to Saved by the Bell, in our initial years media is only educational entertainment or amusing adventures. Then we grow to watch movies, to surf the Internet, to talk to those from far away places through media – but it barely registers.

There is no phenomenon in mediated experience. I like to look at the National Geographic Photo of The Day everyday; I see the sublime but there is little effect. Americans read about the genocide in Darfur, they see the images, they hear the testimonies. Do they do anything? Do you think we’d take action if we spent a day, a week, a year, with those who are suffering? This world ends the moment the laptop screen is closed.

The more I use technology, the more I consider its vast possibilities, the more I see its limitations. It is a valuable tool, but I think that it should not be a priority. There are more important things, more meaningful interactions (see my last post.) Don’t get me wrong – I like emailing, I like instant messaging – but I go to these only when alone in my apartment (or other situations where speech is not permitted and my laptop screen isn’t facing Charlie or Deanna.) These are only sad alternatives for when sitting at a quiet table with a drink, taking a stroll under the Christmas lights of Ann Arbor, or hanging out and playing a game of pool is not an option. The realm of the real will always trump the mediated world. It is only in the real and physical world that we can truly experience the phenomena of life; that we can truly begin understand even a small bit of what there is to be understood.

So how can we use this idea as teachers? (Or oppose it, that’s fine. In fact, I thank you if you even read the whole thing. I doubt I’d read my own writing.) I myself don’t know how we can create these moments for students; I don’t even begin to claim that what I say here is something to be striven for. In fact, I doubt I had very few of these phenomenological disruptions, these moments in which the world became a very new place, a much more fantastic place to exist, during my high school experience. There were a few times this happened – reading Jack Kerouac, a great conversation in AP English or Philosophy, when a pretty girl actually talked to me – that the world I knew became a very different place from what I thought it to be, but they were seldom. Do they have to be seldom? How, or can, we create these experiences? I want to be able to open my students’ eyes to the phenomena that every moment of lived experience should be, that it is.

The Ghosts in our Schools

This past summer I posted on problems of Hermeneutics within the notion of blogging itself. In the comments to the post, Professor Stanzler wrote that there is an element of faith in this type of communication. I could not agree more. Exactly how to define this faith is something that has bothered me for a long time. Every time that words come out of my mouth, they can be taken the wrong way. Every time that I write something on my blog, it can be interpreted in a manner far from what I intended. Communication is a fragile enterprise, but there is nothing more important.

Sharing meaning is a dangerous business. Unless you are a clairvoyant of some kind, you are unable to step directly into the mind of another. (And if you are a clairvoyant, stay away from me. There are moments when my inner life lacks dignity.) This leaves us only two real options: sharing time and touch with another, and the use of language. Giving someone your time and touch, two things that cannot be reproduced, is perhaps the only ways to truly convey a meaningful message to someone. (This is the essential conclusion behind the work of scholar John Durham Peters.) A hug means more than telling someone to feel better, holding someone's hand means more than any poem, a lifetime of fidelity means more than all of the words of love ever written. However, most people are very careful with whom they share their time and touch - so we arrive at option number two. The second way that we attempt to share meaning is through the use of language, but as Peters notes and most agree with, words are crude representations of inner life. Yet, so crude as they may be in representation, they play a more important role for us than many realize.

This importance is perhaps suggested to us in The Phenomenology of Spirit, a beautiful book by German philosopher GWF Hegel. To probably oversimplify, Hegel wrote that ‘there is no self without the other.’ While he goes on to argue the less convincing point that there is no real inside and one cannot know what they really think or feel without the presence of others, his point is an important one. How would you know that you exist without the recognition of others? You recognize me; I exist. I recognized you; you exist. Together we enable humanity.

This recognition is enabled primarily through the use of language. Thus, it seems to me that existence as we know it is built upon a very two interesting foundations. The more stable recognition, that of time and touch, is essentially what propels humanity into the future (given a specific interpretation of the two words together). The second, more fickle, foundation of existence is that of language. So why does this matter for a teacher?

Language is the tool of a teacher. I guess the point I’m trying to get at here is be careful to acknowledge all of your students – a smiley on an assignment, a word here, a small conversation there – sometimes such words do more than assess and acknowledge. Some kids can go through a school day without speaking a word. At times, I was one of those students in high school. Ghosts do walk through our schools. It is possible to not-exist for hours at a time. How does it feel when you write a blog and no one comments on it? It’s almost like the post doesn’t exist. Words, as frightening as they can be when you’re trying to share your inner world, can mean more than you think.

Whiskey with John and Jon

A few posts ago I let my nerdiness fly as I began a post talking about my top ten list of academics. Some list their favorite sports teams, some list their favorite foods, some list their favorite drinks, and some just might list their favorite academics. Well, just as whiskey on the rocks is an unmovable classic in the top drinks of all time, John Dewey holds a permanent position on my list of top academics.

Now, we’ve read some of Dewey’s work and thought on education. Fantastic thinker, isn’t he? Well, just as whisky on the rocks is a versatile drink enjoyable with friends at the bar or an agreeable evening enhancement as you enjoy a book by the fireplace, Dewey is a brilliant man whose work holds axiom-like positions in many fields of academia. Though Dewey was dazzling in his educational philosophy begging for a progressive cultivation of a thoughtful and skilled member of humanity, I believe this thought (shared by many) is but a shrub growing next to the redwood that is his work in the field of communications.

Dewey was one of the founding fathers in the field of communications. Setting up this field, he coined the term “public,” which is essentially used to describe a group of citizens all working for the same thing. Good, great, grand. You’re probably thinking, “Wow, Jon, smart man. It’s great how people become famous for pointing out the obvious.” But wait, this term is merely a tool. Dewey’s main work talks about how today’s dispersal of information is causing problems within these publics; publics being the idea upon which our very democracy is built upon. Today’s media is creating publics, across time and space, with interests that – in simple language – are a goddamn waste of time, energy, and thought. There are websites for every cause – from banning Barry Bonds from baseball, to building a giant wall on our southern borders. Dewey worries that when such publics form, people lose the interest in local community issues. For Dewey, politics should not be the business of communications, but rather each citizen should focus on the world around them to be an involved member of democracy.

We have entered an age where real action is being replaced by ritual participation through communications technology. For example, no longer do students mobilize to try to make a change - they believe that change can be reached by simply pushing a button and joining a "group" on facebook. Through their profile has a link to the "I think George Bush is an Idiot" page, this virtual world has little or no effect in the realm where our national debt has become unfathomable. Thanks to the world of mass communications, our democracy is now characterized by an ineffective large public, and smaller publics that are unable to interact and counteract the real problems of society. We have entered a paradox: our over-connectedness causes disconnect.

Now, anyone with a critical eye and knowledge of Dewey, will shake their head at my oversimplification and partial butchering of Dewey’s communication work. (There’s much more to it, and the above statements were merely premises in his main argument about the role of journalism is society.) However, what no one can argue against, or shake their head at, or call tomfoolery, is the following: Dewey would have been a huge advocate for education in media literacy!

Premise: Dewey’s Educational Theory asked for the full education of an individual with
skills and knowledge to be incorporated to their lives as citizens and human beings.
Premise: Dewey’s Communication Theory spoke of the problems the Mass Media brings
upon the public
Premise: Media Literacy is not a set of facts, but rather a tool of critical thinking to
decipher and take a critical view of media communications and how information is presented in today’s society.

Conclusion: John Dewey and Jon D’Angelo would sit together, drink whiskey on the
rocks, and congratulate each other on their advocacy for media literacy.

When Students Are Smater

Facebook is blocked in our schools. Today kids showed me how to access it using a proxy-server, and explained to me what a proxy-server is. This sort of forced me to do a double take in my consideration of technology in the schools....

As it stands now, the average student is much more knowledgeable about how to use technology and the internet to get what they want. They use applications from imovie, to powerpoint, to instant messenger with more efficiency than the average teacher could ever hope for. They know how to find information on the web with ease. What's the point of blocking websites if students can just find ways around the internet filter?

Perhaps rather then just trying to block them from what is available on the internet, we teach them how to think critically about it. In the presentation on internet filtering last week, the student interviews clearly indicated that filtering is pointless. The kids know what's out there. Instead of pretending that it's not there, why don't we give the tools with which to consider it?

Wikipedia: Another Testamant for Media Literacy

Last week during the presentation of Wikipedia, (Bravo guys, it was great,) there was an interesting comment made. Standing before the future teachers of America, Bob commented on the need for training in Wikipeida. The argument was based on the notion that Wikipedia is an informational source that can be edited by the public. However, I think this comment was simply a part of a larger and sometimes unspoken crises we now face: there has to be education in media literacy.

Yeah, I’ve written about it before, but I’m going do it again. So deal with it. There’s nothing you can do about it; this is my blog and I can put any type of information I want out there. And you know what? No matter what I write there will be people who read it, believe it, and support it. I think that swimmers are supreme beings because they have to spend so much time alone with their brains swimming back and forth. This heightened self-awareness puts them on a whole level. Now, there are people out there who will be mesmerized by the apparent logic of my logic-less prose. There are others of you who will go; “man, I’ve partied with swimmers. Those are some weird mother ……’s.” But my point endures, I can put out whatever information I want on the web, and there will be people who believe me.



This idea gets more interesting though when you realize that some of the flawed information available to people on the web isn’t as easily identifiable. Wikipedia is full of false information and you seldom notice it. However, there are other Medias that also are taken as fact too easily. Objectivity is impossible in language. Television news has been shown to report with clear bias, journalism can never escape it’s given frames. Too often we receive information that we take as knowledge. In a world of infinitely growing information, we must have to begin to consider the realities of knowledge.

The call is for media literacy, and I’m happy to report that there are some who realize its importance: http://www.medialit.org. However, I offer a simpler solution. Put the study of communications into the high school curriculum. Put it in as a unit in English classes. Honestly, what is more important for today’s students? What good is knowing how to identify alliteration in Beowolf if they think that Swimmers represent a greater realm of man?

Zen and the Art of Technology Reduction

Don’t get me wrong, I love technology. Right now I sit on my couch with my laptop connected wirelessly to the Internet as I watch football on my flat-screen TV with digital cable. Life is good. However, this technological bliss didn’t come without its struggles; the cable and internet are only set-up after 3 missed appointments by Comcast, my wireless internet only works after 2 hours on the phone with a guy named Sam who sounded like Apu from the Simpsons, and the eternal struggle to figure out how to use my new Macbook after using a pc for ten years. Technology is great, but it’s also frustrating.

I think though, that technology is made unnecessarily complex. This becomes clear in the simple example of my mentor teacher’s struggles to utilize technology in the classroom. What he wants is to set up something like ctools for his English classes. He’s tried out Google groups, Ann Arbor Public school’s moodle, and his own website through AAPS. I showed him how to set up his own wikispace and blog. Simply put, he’s floating in the sea of technology, able to keep his head above the water, but unable to swim with skill among the waves.

Beginning this semester, I feel the same way. I have a new Laptop, and a new camera, but the simple fact is that I barely know how to use them. To be honest, I’m still trying to figure out ctools, how to find my financial information on Michigan’s website, and how to make it so that I just have one email account. Classmates have said I’m good with technology; I can put together a wiki quickly, edit decent movie, and put pictures on my blog. But there is so much more that I know I could do. This week I’m gong to attempt to learn how to take pictures and put together a clip show. The sad fact is that this is going to take me a long time to figure out, and I’ll probably do it with less skill than if I were given specific instruction. It will be but another wave I learn how to ride for a bit before it breaks in the ocean of technology.

I know that my masters isn’t in technology, or even technology education, so there’s no real reason to have a more focused approach to technology. But given the sheer dependence of the program on different tools of technology, given the fact that they’ve given us such great technology, I wish we’d have the opportunity to really learn the ins and outs of what we have. Or maybe we could even simplify, try one thing at a time. Get used to the Macbook, then learn how to use the camera, then combine the two.

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Phaedrus speaks of the importance of quality in a world obsessed with quantity. I think that the SMAC program might benefit if it were to take a moment to step back from the struggle for technological quantity, and focus on the cultivation of students who demonstrate technological quality.

Amusing Myself Inane

In our last class we talked a bit about Neil Postman. If one might be allowed to have a top ten list of academics, (I’m a graduate student now, I figure I can let my inner-dorkiness out,) my friend NP would come in around number 4. He earned this position on Jon’s List of the Learned mostly due to his fabulous work Amusing Ourselves To Death.


In this fantastic work, (an academic work that’s entertaining, it can be done folks!) Postman argues that the Medium is the Metaphor. Simply put, the medium of communication influences the conversation. With this set as the premise of the book, NP goes on to praise print and tackle television. He argues that print encourages thought and rational judgment, even demands a higher order thinking, while television demands nothing of the such, being but mere entertainment. He goes on to compare our future to that of Huxley’s Brave New Word: Television and entertainment is our own soma, we have come to “adore the technologies that undo (our) ability to think.” Crap. I like TV. That can’t be good.

In an interesting turn, towards the end of the book, our mastermind NP makes an important suggestion for how to fix this little dilemma of television. He suggests that we teach students to be better consumers of the drug that is television in the schools, “The desperate answer is to rely on the only mass medium of communication that, in theory, is capable of addressing the problem: our schools.” Interesting notion. I like it, I like it a lot.

I think Postman is onto something here. In my last blog I wrote of how I see knowledge as necessarily being the product of the technologies of communication. (If anyone is interested, let me know and I can toss out some theory from Dewey and others to help support how I explained this process in the last post.) It seems that Postman might agree with me, or rather, it is I who agree with him. The subject of communication, now more than ever, must find its way into the high school classroom. Without understanding of this subject, which stresses a clearer glimpse of all the information that is thrown out at us every day, how can we be said to have a firm grip of knowledge? How can we seek to give students valuable tools of knowledge if we don’t give them even a little bit of immunity to the powerful soma of today? If they don’t get this immunity, if it soon doesn’t become the standard critical foundation upon which knowledge is built, will we be doomed to forever adore the very devices which undo our ability to think?

Technology and Understanding: The Blog as the Key to Knowledge

I am drowning in a sea of education theory. Normally I’m a solid swimmer. Hell, I was the captain of my college swim team. But these last four weeks have been a monsoon of educational theory; it’s been raining constructivism, I’m choking on the salty waves of substantive conversation, a monster named Pygmalion is pulling me to the bottom of the ocean, and apparently, it’s all going to be recorded for my own good.

However, as I cling to the life-preserver that is the self reminded reassurance that the worst that can happen is complete failure and a move south to be a professional lifeguard, I’m beginning to put some things together. Or at least I think I am. Either way, it’s going on this page.

Basically, in my mind, (which tends to take an axe and chop things down to the simplest possible notion,) I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re trying to teach knowledge and understanding. It’s not what the book says, but rather the methods with which we utilize texts for further understanding and the creation of knowledge. If this is true though, if understanding what knowledge is and how it’s formed and created is the goal of education, perhaps there is a better way to do it. Perhaps understanding the blog is the key to wisdom.

Here’s how my mind justifies that bold statement: Technology dictates communication. Communication creates the culture. Culture defines the knowledge. Therefore, is it fair to deduce that the best way to help students understand the nature of knowledge in today’s world is to ensure that they have a strong basis in and understanding of technology?

Hmmm… maybe we should try to apply my layman pop-theory. To be a good citizen in a democracy a person should vote. A good voter is educated in the matters of the day. To be educated in the matters of the day, one must understand the culture in its broadest sense – what’s going on in the country. To understand the dilly yo, (beyond the personal sphere,) one must communicate with others. To communicate with others, in the personal or broad sense, we rely on communications technology. However, to best understand communication technology, one must understand all of its facets. Communications technology is much more complex than most take it for; from framing, to corporate ownership, to the impossibilities of objectivity, there is much to be considered. Thus, to best set up a student to understand the nature of knowledge, wouldn’t a firm grounding in technology be essential? I think so.

The bottom line is that communication, (which is driven by technological advancement,) dictates much of the knowledge of the day. When the telegram first became popular, it changed the very nature of the English language. Sentences had to become shorter and more meaningful, concise wording became the most valued form of language. How will the Internet change language? How has it already? To ground students in an understanding in technology is to hopefully set them up with the best ability to understand the nature of knowledge in today’s world.

"When you discard arrogance, complexity, and a few other things that get in the way, sooner or later you will discover that simple, childlike, and mysterious secret known to those of the Uncarved Block: Life is Fun."




Next Week: Technology, Taxonomy, and Epistemology

Technology and Idealism in Education

I think, or perhaps choose to believe, that there is an innate and essential element found in the make-up of all English teachers. This quality may not endure after years dealing with school politics and changing curriculums, student apathy and state mandates, poor pay and deficient funding. But there is a point, when these men and women first read a great book, felt again when they first step into the classroom, at which this vital flame slowly begins to glow warm. For some it is but a fleeting emotion, for others it is the fuel that drives them through the day. These teachers will be guarded at times, joking of the summers off, the good hours, the job options, and the ideals of this unquestionably noble profession. But there is unspoken passion. Perhaps it is too naive, possibly delirious in its own romance, but this little fire give a slight warmth to even the coldest days; it is simple notion of what can be, it is the unquestionable belief that with books we can change the world.

These teachers see teenagers full of angst, full of self-doubt, confused in self-identity, scared that the center simply does not hold. How these teachers would so like to explain to their students, soon to set foot into this sometimes harsh world, that these feelings will go away. But do they? Yet, as teachers, they believe that they can make a difference. If they can only teach these torch bearers of the future to covet the true love that Romeo and Juliet so unquestionably prove must exist, what a wonderful world we could live in. If only Gatsby can lead these students to live their own lives, teach them how to honestly pursue dreams, how fantastic life could be. If only the students would sit for a night and read O’brien’s The Things They Carried, how sure they are that war would be no more. How great the world would be if they could only teach the students to see the beauty, to know the horror, to feel that which is sublime. Spoken or silently understood, these teachers believe that the right few words can change the world. For, the world does need to change.


Today, given the choice, most children will sit at a desk with a computer rather than under a tree with a book. The average teenage would rather chat with their friends on AIM and stalk their ex-girlfriends or current love interests on facebook, than read the stories that fundamentally define what humanity is, what it could be. You may argue that they’re being more human with the computer and communications technology; they are speaking and interacting with other human beings, they are on national geographic seeing parts of the world that they would never see in a novel, they are learning the current realities of the world that no book can ever provide. Is this not better than arguing whether it’s better to be, or not to be?

There is no simple answer. I do think it’s great that the Internet can give us the realities of life across the globe. But what if I don’t want to teach realities, what if I want to teach ideals? What if I don’t want to teach what is, what if I want to teach what I do so honestly believe could be? Can I utilize the all that communication technology provides without distracting from the dream worlds and grandiose notions of being that I will teach? Do I sacrifice the glimmers knowledge I see in novels for the glare of knowledge that can be found online?

I'd give all the wealth that years have piled,
The slow result of Life's decay,
To be once more a little child
For one bright summer day.

- Lewis Carroll, "Solitude"


Next Week: Technology and Idealism in Education

The Problem of Hermeneutics: Why This Post Will Probably Offend Someone

University of Iowa Professor John Durham Peters, in the bible of communications theory that is Speaking Into The Air, writes that Hermeneutics is the reading of texts that have drifted out of their original historical setting. Essentially, it is the interpretation of stray texts. Historically, it has referred to the practice of looking at religious documents, but as a philosophical consideration the notion has come to encompass the whole realm of communication. Philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, and Kierkegaard even see face to face communication as a form of Hermeneutics, for it involves a great deal of interpretation; the spoken word is a poor representative of inner life. Considering the study in the context of Blogs, we might refer to hermeneutics simply as eavesdropping - the study of a text that was not intended for you.

Wow, that’s a lot of information. We’ve got some dead philosophers, a leading communications theorist, and a broad contemporary philosophical notion. I should probably do a better job of citing all that knowledge that I once learned from other sources. What if the plagiarism police come and take me? I picture old lady librarians breaking in through my door and locking me in the back of the bookmobile. It’s a scary thought. But I’m brave (or stupid, or perhaps lazy,) and have decided not to cite in depth. Why? Because this is my blog, it is my personal journal. Oh, wait. You’re reading it. It’s not personal anymore. Then again, it might not be intended for you, you’re essentially eavesdropping on my thoughts. I’m very confused. I bet you are too.

So here’s the dilly, yo: This is my blog. It’s supposed to be my personal thoughts, yet at the same time it’s open to the public. I view this as my tool to practice both my thinking and my writing. (That’s why I get to write words like dilly and talk about mind-boggling things like hermeneutics.) Yet, those who read it might see it as something different. Those who know me best might see it as a great personal toy, knowing very well how I like to play with the ideas I come across in the world of knowledge. Yet, those who don’t know me very well might see it as a stringent statement of my personal beliefs and the way I understand the world. Professors might read it and hang their head in shame at my writing style or my unprecedented ability to butcher ideas. My words will undoubtedly be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and as soon as I comment on anything anywhere near controversial, they will probably piss someone off. The amazing part is that I won’t intend to do any of these things, to produce any of those thoughts – but there is no way to avoid them.

Given more consideration, I assume that there will be two types of readers. There those who will read my words from Michigan; they are not necessarily engaging in hermeneutics for the words are semi-intended for them, and they have a chance to ask questions and I will get a chance to respond. However, the communication is still flawed and heavy on interpretation, for I know there are many who will read this and never comment or never ask for clarification, they will simply eavesdrop, or perhaps stalk. (Haha, caught you.) However, there will also be those who read this who are not in the class, who have no real connection to me at all, and are simply reading and trying to comprehend a text that is removed from them in both space and time. This is where problems may lie: whether my readers be those I know who just don’t ask for clarification or those far removed with no ability to move into a more reliable correspondence, there is always great room for miscommunication.

To refer again to Dr. Peters wonderful prose, we see that “communication is a risky adventure without guarantees.” New communications technology, while perhaps serving to expand the practices of communication, dramatically complicates it. Never has the room for misunderstanding, for finding fine lines between communication and eavesdropping, been so great and so challenging. Never has the possibility of coming across stray texts been greater. Never has the study of hermeneutics been so critical to a society as it is now becoming.

On Intellectual Ego and Academic Apprehension: We’re Supposed to be High-School Teachers, Not High School Students

Today our class periods were characterized by two overwhelming themes; debate fueled by strong emotions and unchallengeable personal opinions, and seemingly frantic concern about workloads and grades. I’m not a big fan of either. Understandably, if you put 55 pretty damn smart people in the same room and start talking about a subject that’s even remotely controversial, you’ll get a debate. Undoubtedly, a group of future high school teachers will want more than any other group to try to teach the knowledge that they have. This doesn’t mean that we should have class periods like that though. I think things could have gone a little bit smoother.

At times it seemed like people weren’t listening to each other; they were just waiting for the moment when they could make their knowledge/reasoning/experiences/voices heard. This amused me because I do enjoy a good debate, but it could have been so much better if we were more accepting of each others opinions without being so guarded. I believe that everything anyone says can be, or even is in fact, brilliant. The simple fact is that the greatest philosophers of the modern age have a hard time moving past solipsism. If great minds can’t prove that a world exists outside of our own perception, I find it simply incredible that people can hold so sternly onto their opinions and reasoning. There is not one simple piece of knowledge in western thought that can go unchallenged. We’re in grad school to learn. Part of learning is hearing others. (Perhaps we can even take a break from our constant discussions and debates and listen to our professors.)

Maybe the issue is that I’ve read too much Plato, (he wrote about the famous Greek guy in the robe that says ‘I only know that I know nothing,’) or perhaps the fact is that I’m younger and whole lot more naïve than my classmates. I may not agree with everything they say, in the future I may not agree with everything my students say, but I believe that any intelligent, reasoned, heartfelt opinion is brilliant. It can be nothing more, but it can also be nothing less. Simply put, I don’t believe you can educate unless you understand how truly and inarguably fickle our foundation of knowledge is in this world.


Along the same lines, I thought the degree of concern about grades and assessment seemed to be a little ridiculous. Okay, yes, we’re going to be high school teachers and understanding the values of assessments is important. But do you think, maybe, at least in some little way, we can move past that as graduate students? Would it be possible, after so many years of schooling to seek some knowledge, maybe even a fleeting glimmer of wisdom, instead of freaking out about exactly how many sentences our response is supposed to be or when it’s supposed to be due? At the end of this program you will be assigned some number out of 8 (or 4, I don’t even know.) No matter how high this number is, or how low this number is, it doesn’t have a great correlation with what you actually know. If it’s lower, it won’t take away from what you know. I guarantee all of you have walked out of a classroom with a great grade and understood less than when you’ve walked into it. I think the focus needs to change at this point in our education.

Finally, It’s not like we’re competing against each other in this program. We’re here to learn from each other. Part of the appeal of being a teacher is a lifetime of learning from others, adjusting our own opinions with the times, learning how to identify with and teach new generations of students new knowledge and ever-changing standard curriculums. It seems to me that some of us are failing to see the big picture here. Yes, I myself may never understand life outside of a school, but I at least hope that my understanding of what education is supposed to be represents something beyond striving for the first letter of the alphabet.


Sorry for the rant, I’m usually not one to complain. Next post: The Problem of Hermeneutics: Why this post will probably offend some people.

Technology, Human Experience, Hermeneutics, and the impossibilities of authentic communication - more to come later! It's a fantastic day, you should be outside.

Hey Hey Hey

I tried blogging once before. Got a nice following, but decided my ramblings probably weren't the best thing to be viewed by everyone around the globe. However, it was pretty cool because I rhymed the whole thing. I'm not going to do that here. Sorry. Maybe I'll allow a little alliteration every now and then, we'll see how I feel.