|
In
speaking of the discoveries and techniques of F.M. Alexander, John
Dewey stated that
his
procedure and conclusions meet
all the requirements of the strictest scientific method, and that he
has applied the method in a field in which it had never been used
before - that of our judgments and beliefs concerning ourselves and our
activities. In so doing, he has...rounded out the results of the
sciences in the physical field, accomplishing this end in such a way
that they become capable of use for human benefit. It is a commonplace
that scientific technique has for its consequence control of the
energies to which it refers. Physical science has for its fruit an
astounding degree of new command of physical energies. Yet we are faced
with a situation which is serious, perhaps tragically so. There is
everywhere increasing doubt as to whether this physical mastery of
physical energies is going to further human welfare, or whether human
happiness is going to be wrecked by it. Ultimately there is but one
sure way of answering this question in the hopeful and constructive
sense. If there can be developed a technique which will enable
individuals really to secure the right use of themselves, then the
factor upon which depends the final use of all other forms of energy
will be brought under control. [135]
Dewey asserted that
Alexander had done just
this, and that the possibilities for human growth and
betterment suggested by this method contained "the premise and
the potentiality of the new direction that is needed in all
education." [136]
The main criteria that Dewey is talking about for
determining scientific validity for a method are that 1. general
principles of understanding develop at the same time as and in
reference to specific consequences that follow directly and
concretely from these principles, as effect from cause, 2. that
this relationship of principle and consequences be verifiable in
experience, and 3. that the method itself provide the
operational means for making evident and observable what the
consequences are, guaranteeing that the consequences that are observed
do in fact flow from the principle.[137] In examining Alexander's
method he found that the principles that he
enunciated always arose out of very definite experiential situations,
in the closest connection with the observation of
consequences in the actual operation of his method, and that the
consequences and principles were used as means to test each other
experimentally. Every step of the process was thoroughly analyzed
and clearly formulated into new refinement of theory and method,
which were in turn used to discover new experiential material for
analysis and formulation.This procedure, according to Dewey,
conforms to the most exacting standards of scientific
method.
This carries the exact and demanding standards
of validity in the means of gaining knowledge into the area
of human conduct and action that Alexander was dealing
with. It also holds good for other methods and researches in
the functional learning disciplines which follow those rigorous
standards,so that it is not just Alexander's method that is
scientifically valid for research into human action, but any
method which applies the same care and precision of procedure in
meeting the criteria of validity. Thus, the whole field of somatic
research may be held to be a strictly scientific endeavor insofar
as it adheres strictly to the exacting standard exemplified by
Alexander's work.
Dialectical method brings out the implicit
central aims of the other functional disciplines and completes
them in this way. It goes beyond any of these disciplines
in bringing the self-experiencing to the most fundamental
energies of the self, out of which all actions and experiences are
guided and organized. The result is a true dialectical science.
The dialectical method of learning that I have
presented in this paper, then, may make the claim of being a
valid, scientific method of research in the human, experiential
field, building as it does on the disciplines of functional, somatic
learning. As can be seen in the steps of practice (in the
section on "The Art of Choosing" ), it arises out of the
examination of experience, discovering principles of action (ideai) which
govern that experience and lead to definite and specific
consequences, which are in turn checked against the principles. The
whole method is an act of correlating principles with consequences that
flow from them, with systematic modification according to the test of
experiencing, until the principle (the idea) exhibits a
very clear and definite determining relationship to the results of
action, as cause to effect. The determining of ideai out of
experiencing and the correlation of these with their specific
consequences, is experienced and realized in the actual operation of
the method itself, making that method valid as a means of gaining
knowledge.
The dialectical method not only shares the
scientific validity of the functional, experiential methods that take
their inspiration from Alexander's research, but carries that
research into human conduct into the deep-feeling essence of
human being, knowing and acting. The somatic disciplines, including
Alexander's, have dealt mainly with how we use ourselves in patterns of
body movement, conduct and behavior, working toward the integration of
human structures, systems and functions. Dialectic leads our
experiencing into how we use ourselves in our most basic motives - our
deep needs, desires and feelings (the most basic energies of our
experiencing: eros)
and our longing for happiness, aiming for moral transformation in the
whole structure of experiencing and erotic integration in
accordance with proper ends (telos) and our
truest values. This is the level of human experiencing that governs and
directs the use of all the other energies of the self. Human
functional ability (arete)
is organized around this. The functional learning disciplines are
incomplete without the explicit development and use of this dimension,
and are bound to fail in their (implicitly) highest aims, at least to a
great extent, without it. The acknowledgment and use of this dimension
can lead these disciplines on to their proper ends and fullest
uses, so that the combination of Socratic inquiry and functional
method can result in a true dialectical science.
When Freud took a long hard look at the love, the
passions, the attraction, the desire and the drives that motivate
people from their deep selves, he was in the process of
rediscovering the teleological dimension of ancient science that
has been lost or driven into the occult in modern times. The science
of antiquity, epitomized by Aristotle and Galen, recognized
four "causes" or principles of functioning at work in any
natural process.[138] They looked upon nature as a living,
creative process (physis)
that had the same principles in its action as any artistic process.
Just as, for instance, a sculpture consists of 1. the materials from
which it is made, 2. the mechanical, structural relationship of
the parts that make it up, 3. the functional pattern which is
perceived as its form, and 4. the idea which it exhibits, that
governs the putting together of its materials, structure and
form; any natural process exhibits 1. a material cause, which is
the material stuff from which it is made, 2. an efficient
(or mechanical) cause, which consists of the forces and
action of the parts and their interrelationships, the structure
and arrangement of parts, 3. a formal cause, which is the patterns
of action and functioning of the whole process, taken as an
integral unity, and 4. a final cause, which is the idea or intent in
the process which organizes its action and directs it toward an
end (its telos.)
Modern science has dealt exclusively with material and efficient
causes, mainly because the proper understanding of formal and final
causes had been lost or obscured.
When Freud discovered motives in actions he
had rediscovered final causes in natural process,
specifically the human natural process that we are interested
in researching scientifically through dialectical inquiry.
He found, and elaborated in his many writings, that the basic
organizing principle or idea (final
cause) of human action and experiencing is erotic and passional, that
the fundamental impulses and energies that move us into action are
driven by the need and desire for pleasure and happiness on a
deep, somatic level of our experiencing. Eros is the energy of
life that impels us in the directions we take. All other factors in
life, all the energies of our body selves (and the elements of the
other three causes) are animated by the striving toward erotic ends.
The natural course of human growth and development is to integrate the
various and divergent impulses of the whole felt experiential process
into a unified directed action in love and work, driven and empowered
by the force of eros. The many instincts and impulses that are
found in the natural human process (the "primary process") need
to be integrated in order to function properly and in
harmony.[139] The organization and governance of human process
is essentially erotic.
This is the same insight that operates in
dialectical learning. It is eros in both the
student and the
teacher that leads to the discernment of ideai and the
transformation in the experiencing that makes proper use of the self
possible. Dialectic makes use of the scientific methodology of the
functional somatic disciplines for working with final causes in human
process. Dialectic goes beyond these disciplines in the investigation
of the possibilities for "creative conscious control"
(Alexander's term) in human living, to the most basic energies
and principles which govern that ability to control. The
functional somatic learning disciplines deal mainly with patterns
within the process (formal causes) and the integration of human
functions. Final causes are only implicit in their operations, if
present at all. Dialectic makes the dimension of final causes
explicit and its main concern. It thereby takes the new direction in
scientific inquiry which these disciplines represent and carries it a
step further to the explicit investigation and use of final causes in
the human process which are the governing and organizing
principles of the process - the moral ideai in the
process which make it specifically human. As the move into the
scientific investigation of the control of human action through somatic
functional inquiry was promising and needed, so the move beyond this
into the experiential investigation into eros, idea and telos is
necessary, for in the final analysis there can be no real and
complete functional integration of the human deep
experiential process without the essential erotic, ideational
and teleological integration which Dialectic aims at. Human
materials, systems, structures and functions are organized and
animated by the final causes of human moral purposes. Any natural
learning method or research methodology that fails to recognize this is
bound to fail to be a fully human moral endeavor, and thereby also
ultimately fail in its main aim of organizing and integrating the use
of the self. The explicit acknowledgment and use of this
dimension of moral final causality can lead the natural learning
disciplines on to their proper ends and fullest uses.
The scope of dialectical inquiry is the whole field
of human action. The action to be inquired into could be anything that
a human is capable of doing, or even thinking or imagining (for these
are ways of doing also.) In Plato's Dialogues we see the
dialectical action at work in politics, ethics, statesmanship,
rhetoric, cosmology, theology, mathematics, physics, and many
others. Any field of academic study is a doing as well as a content
area. Learning to do the discipline of the field of study is more
important and serves the student better than exclusive attention to the
contents. So, the action or discipline of any of the traditional arts
or sciences can be a starting place for dialectical inquiry. Any
art or craft is also an obvious example of human doing. The
dialectical investigation of these forms of human action could
easily lead into experiential insights into the essence of the
creative process and the consequent liberation of right doing, to
better embody the original creative impulse. Any action that a
person does, which he can put his attention on, as in step I (in the
section of "The Art of Choosing"), can be a place to start. You
start from just what you are doing, whatever it may happen to be, and
you go from there. Whatever draws your attention is the natural
starting place because the initial attraction of attention is the first
impulse of eros which makes the process happen.
Socrates went out into the marketplace in Athens and
talked with people about whatever came up, skillfully leading the
conversation into moral inquiry and the discovery of ideai. This is
what any Socratic teacher does. He enters into deep conversations
with people about their lives, starting right from where they are now
in their present experiencing, and skillfully following that
experiencing wherever it leads. Since ideai are
present in all experiencing as its governing and organizing principles
(or final causes), this inquiry naturally and spontaneously leads
to them, through careful, discriminating, experiential tracking and
questioning. So, whatever a person can distinguish in his experiencing
that makes the slightest bit of difference ( "a difference that makes a
difference " ) can be an opening to an idea that can
dialectically lead to a deep moral/spiritual transformation.
The practice of Dialectic takes any human action as
the opportunity to transform the basic structure of experiencing and to
liberate the original natural intelligence and presencing of the
whole being. This is the process that Plato called anemnesis
(remembering, recollecting.) Anemnesis means
following the experiencing dialectically where it leads, and that is to
a remembrance of your true natural telos, and of
the ideai
that inform your process.Through this you come to know yourself and be
centered in your own experiencing. This makes the arete (right
action, proper use, excellence) specific to human living possible,
which is the clear flow of energy (eros) in every
intent from impulse to execution; the perfect coordination of eros, eidos (form,
function), telos
(end, aim), idea
and technai
(skill or means-whereby) as apprehended and directed by nous (natural
intuitive intelligence.) The specific intent of dialectical
learning, then, is moral, in the sense of finding the proper means of
right action (human arete) by
remembering who you are. The essence of functional learning and
the only real morality is to come to know yourself and be centered in
your own experiencing (a state which Plato called sophrosyne.)
In this you learn to manage or use well, through clear and right
discernment in action, those fundamental energies of self upon which
the final use of all other forms of energy depends.
So, dialectical inquiry, in the form that we have
presented it here, is a scientifically valid means of gaining
knowledge. It is science in the original, functional sense of episteme, direct
experiential knowing of final causes, and the knowledge thereby gained
is a moral experiential knowing of self and the action of self.
Dialectic is therefore a moral science in the most fundamental and
far-reaching sense: it holds out the real possibility of attaining
creative conscious control and mastery of self and its energies in all
acting and experiencing, for the realization of enduring
happiness through the fulfillment of the ends of action and the end (telos) of
living. In this its character as the practical science of essential
human action it is the scientific foundation of a truly liberating,
dialectical liberal education. That is the idea of
Dialectic.
Attaining a view of the idea of
Dialectic has been the aim of this paper. That idea, like any idea,
then becomes the guiding principle of effective action. In this case,
that action is the practice of Dialectic. Through the idea of
Dialectic as functional experiential method, we now have a sure guide
and inspiration for deep moral transformation through Socratic
dialectical inquiry.
To
continue, go back to the Scholarly Validation page.
|
|