Is learning our earnest? LO20562

Mark Feenstra (
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:28:18 +1300

Replying to LO20533 --

At chose to use the term "Is learning our earnest?". He then went on to
justify his use of the term earnest. I felt better about his use of the
term with this explanation, but would like to advocate a slight change to
it which might then support further engagement with the question itself.

My sense is that for many native English speakers the meaning I perceive
that At intended would be more easily shared by using the term "in
earnest". Whether ease of sharing meaning is always an important value is
another question I guess.

On this basis At's question might become "Are we in earnest about
learning?". Funnily enough this shift might also point towards the heart
of the matter in the sense that perhaps in the noetically this question
points to whether or not the field in which my consciousness routinely
participates is made up of learning as one of its properties.

It is my offering to the altar of this question that to engage with it I
need to reflect on what my relationship is to the reality that the term
"in earnest" points toward. This brings back into question what I include
and exclude in my definition of reality. To me, to be "in earnest about
learning" I need to be conscious enough of my description of reality for
it to be open to learning and curious enough to ask questions that breach
the boundaries of these descriptions. In other words I don't think I can
really be in earnest about learning until my worldview is in turmoil
;-).... this leads me to question what the other properties of the field
might be that will allow me to function in the world whilst my worldview
is in turmoil.

So, is learning enough by itself to be in earnest about?

Warm regards



"Mark Feenstra" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>