Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Change

“Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people”

~ Eleanor Roosvelt


Much to my surprise I recently heard a someone in the school use the 'L' word; logic that is. The point was that it is a basic premise of logic that you cannot go from the particular to the general. The above quote came to mind and the thought arose that if we start to generalise from the basis of particular people or events then want to create change on that basis then that is a shaky foundation to start from.

If there are problems at the level of people and events (I come across loads including experiencing myself on an average day) then the question must be, "How do we get back to a true understanding of the IDEA, the principle?". This may or may not involve change.

What concerned me about V's last post was the possibility that too many people focussed too much on change means taking your eye off the changeless. I don't aim this coment at V personally, just something that concerns me generally. I also relate this to the notion of the name for the blog being, "A School for Today and Tomorrow". The effect it creates here is to think that the blog is some kind of think tank that is going to suggest what the school should be. That may not be the intention but that is how I hear it.

From a more practical point of view when I first started going on residentials, I was asked to wear a suit and tie. Initially, I never gave it a thought as to whether this was good or bad. Just accepted it. Now, my preference would be not to. But to get caught up in arguing about whether it's good or bad is perhaps not a very good use of the mind? It's fairly superficial one way or the other. And the more the mind gets caught up in the details, the arguments, and remains focussed on this then does the changeless get forgotten?

Some might say here that I am advocating doing nothing. Well I am well practised at doing nothing but that's another matter. I feel and it is the experience that a principle deeply understood leads to inevitable change (or inevitable confirmation that what you are already doing is correct). This cannot be a purely theoretical/intellectual grasp of a principle but something that has penetrated into the being, the 'emotional truth' spoken of elsewhere. For example, I became vegetarian on the basis of health and of minimising harm to other beings. The principle was felt as well as thought, then the change was inevitable from this. It has never really been a practise or a discipline, more like a change of behaviour that results from something understood. The converse side of this is to make change without having deeply understood. Maybe it is the correct principle but the results are temporary or shallow or maybe even detrimental.

I just want to make it clear that I am not personally calling for any particular change, nor do I feel qualified to do so. But I do want to question. I want to question because I want to understand. I want to get back to the true idea, the true principle. And I am sure that there are others in the school who already understand the principles better than I do. But as has been said elsewhere, being told the 'right' answer is of only partial use and can even result in unhealthy passivity or 'shallow' change as described above. So I want to question, not to change things. But this also does not deny the possibility or change arising naturally from understanding.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yours is a very radical suggestion, in the true sense of the word, and also a pure one. If one starts from the principle, and sticks only to the principle, then what happens to prescriptive action of which the School is often so fond?

If there wasn't prescriptive action and instruction then would we splay out in all directions in action on the ground? Would we fail to cohere, work as a body? What would we do about the straying sheep? If service (say)is the principle of action then what of human intervention? How does this work?

I don't have an answer to that one except that it must be in the measure: a little light discipline as has been said before.

But this would require a liberality that is often noticeable by its absence. A liberality that allows for 'mistakes' and 'wrong' opinions, that doesn't have an answer to everything, that doesn't, really doesn't, pass judgement or thinks it has an exclusive line to the Absolute. That is confident in not-knowing.

If we were to stick to the principles, as you suggest, and leave the rest to unfold, then would
we have a particular format for group residentials for example? Why go to Waterperry when we might go to Pune? With flights these days we could be there and back in a week with time to spare. Why have study days at Mandeville when we could explore St Albans Cathedral?

It then becomes a question of what kind of mould is required, the godly tamas.

For me, the value of this blog is in exploring these questions. I'm very interested in change.

Kevin said...

Kapila, your argument seems to be getting more and more abstract, and I confess I'm losing sight of it! My pore head is aching.

I would go back to the words of Mr Jaiswal: "It is the duty of every member of the School to imagine how the School should be".

The blog is to help fulfill that duty. That's OK, isn't it?

I'm not calling for change, but for fresh thinking about how the School should be. If that's a change, all right then I am calling for change!

Nick said...

V said:

"I'm not calling for change, but for fresh thinking about how the School should be."

In a nutshell, I was suggesting that "fresh thinking" means re-examining the principle. I think you said something similar in terms of your intial thoughts on "Free the Teaching", to get back to what HH is saying rather than perhaps how we might have misinterpreted it. I think this is the primary enquiry. Going back to the source.

In response to Laura, there is a mould already in place. I'm not advocating dropping it or changing it, only questioning with regard to the source principles.

Kevin said...

Kapila,

There's not much to object to in that, but as well as examining principle we do have to look about us as well. Have your eyes ever seen a principle? Mine haven't.

It's perfectly valid to derive a principle from experience, just as it is valid to interpret experience through principle.

The principle that murder is wrong can be arrived at by witnessing a murder; or it can be arrived at independently of that experience. Either way, it's the same outcome. But I would question someone who believed that there is nothing to be learned from experience or from using one's senses.

The Indian tradition has an interesting addition to this - the karmendriyani or 'senses of action', namely eating, handling, walking etc. We can learn not only by witnessing, but also by participation. This is amply supported by modern educational research.

Thanks, by the way, for this interesting challenge ...

Nick said...

V, I explained what I meant by principle in relation to experience with regard to being vegetarian in the main post (para 5). On re-reading the post, I confess it's not the most eloquent argument as it was composed on a public net connection with a time limit! Probably because of this I feel we're largely 'missing' one another in this thread.