Reflective Practice 1

In thinking about our first event for Reflective Practice, I find myself reflecting not only on our meeting, but also on the goals and nature of the course. One of the reasons I was attracted to CCT was the program’s emphasis on reflection. Investing time and energy into introspection and personal reflection can be extremely difficult; it is incredibly easy to run from moment to moment, day to day, year to year without actually thinking about what I’m doing, how I’m feeling, and why. I appreciate both the program and the class for pushing me to make space for thoughtful reflection.

The first event was interesting because it involved reflection on my own life, while also exposing me to the lives and experiences of others. The autobiographical activity is simple but effective. It encouraged me to think about and share my experiences while giving me a chance to learn from the diverse backgrounds of other members of the CCT community.

One thing I noticed in the activity was the affect of my energy level on my ability to both share and receive insight from others. I was tired and a little distracted at the event, and I struggled with how to summarize my life story, and instinctively found myself pulling back from fully engaging with others. While it’s not surprising that it is harder to engage with myself and others when I’m tired, it’s something important to think about. It’s so easy to always be busy, to always be tired, to never push myself to engage internally or externally. With that in mind, it’s important to make sure I’m saving energy and investing it in thoughtful introspection and meaningful conversations with others.

That’s where the CCT program and this class play a powerful role. All three of my classes this semester (Creative Thinking, Philosophy and Reflective Practice), force me to make time for thinking and meditating, push me to open myself, despite distractions or surface reluctance. While I sometimes initially resist (“I don’t want to write another reaction piece!”), it almost always feels valuable and satisfying once I start the reflection process.

That’s an interesting thing about reflection. It often feels so difficult to make time for reflection, and it’s so easy not to do, but when I do make the time and energy for it I feel better. Reflection helps me see the patterns and structures that are affecting my life, gives me insight into my challenges and offers a chance to engage with others in meaningful ways. But it’s so hard to make time to do!

Why is that? I think part of it is just habit; it’s not built into my life. Part of it is laziness; it’s easier not to do it. Part of it social influence; reflection doesn’t seem ingrained or appreciated in our society as a whole.

Again, that’s what makes the CCT program, and the class, a unique opportunity. They offer a rare corner of the world that encourages and facilitates reflection, that pushes me to make time for it and validates it as an activity.

Philosophy of Adulthood

I consistently enjoy our readings in The Philosophy of Childhood by Gareth B. Matthews. By complicating our view of childhood Matthews raises many important issues, relating both to childhood and human experience across our lifespans. By exploring the way way children think, reflect and explore problems, Matthews confronts societal norms for those behaviors. By exploring issues of children and death, Matthews looks attitude that adults and the medical community have towards death.

The discussion of death reminded me of a conversation I had with a Children's Literature professor several years ago. I asked her why so many classic children's books featured the death of a beloved animal (A Day No Pig's Would Die, The Yearling, Old Yeller, and Where the Red Fern Grows are all examples). I was especially struck with the first three, because the children in the stories actually have to kill their animals themselves. The stories seemed remarkably intense and tragic. The faculty member suggested that for many children, the death of a pet is likely to be their first real experience with mortality, something reflected in the story. Featuring the death of a pet is also a way to introduce the concept of death without actually directly addressing human mortality. I also wonder if these stories are a powerful lesson on bearing the burden of responsibility. In the first three stories, where the children have to kill their beloved animals, it is because of a greater need, a larger responsibility, that the child must bear. In these ways such stories reflect the concept that doing the right thing is often difficult and painful, but also necessary.

In fact, a lot of children's literature involves death, including the tragic death of humans (The Bridge to Teribithia, Island of the Blue Dolphins, The Secret Garden). Which is interesting, since, as Matthews points out, typically adults are uncomfortable discussing death with children. Like many uncomfortable realities, we (adults) find it more comfortable to avoid discussing it with children, being intentionally oblivious to the reality that children will develop their own ideas and perspectives based on what they experience and learn from the world around them.
This dynamic hits at the heart of what strikes me in Matthews work. By looking at how children develop in a complex, multi-layered way, Matthews asks us to think about ourselves (as adults) and our social values. It is like looking at another culture to get greater insight into your own, but in this case the other culture is, instead, another phase of life, one we all experienced, but only vaguely remember, and don't really understand.

Why is it that children, reading Tuck Everlasting, have questions and curiosity about death, but adults are reluctant to talk about it? Why is it that children ask "naive" questions about life ("How does my mind know how big the door is?"), that adults seem to gloss over? Matthews brings up these topics in an exploration of our concept of childhood, but it makes me think of our concept of adulthood. Why do we, as adults, stop asking questions? Why do we find it so hard to discuss certain topics? Not only do we not ask questions and have discussions, we often try to avoid even thinking about certain subjects. Not just serious subjects, like death, which can be upsetting, but also other subjects (What is color? Why do we eat dinner this way?), because they seem pointless or silly, somehow unworthy of consideration.

Matthews describes philosophers as still being able to ask the naive questions. A few other professions are encouraged/allowed to keep a naive point of view as well. Artists, writers, and poets often show a fascination for and focus on things that many of us take for granted, or completely overlook. Some scientists, engineers and inventors make breakthroughs by questioning our assumptions about how things have to be. Social theorists create powerful new concepts by exploring common human behavior. So there are individuals that are encouraged and rewarded for keeping "childish" traits. But they seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. For some reason, the standard concept of adulthood seems be someone that doesn't ask questions, that doesn't wonder why things are the way the are, someone who actually avoids even thinking about certain subjects.

Maybe that is for practical reasons. Throughout most of history, humans have had to struggle to survive. A farmer working from sunrise to sunset to raise food to feed a family has limited resources to invest in abstract thinking. Someone who has an expected lifespan of 44 just won't have as much time to think, period. People who have no access to education, and are unlikely to ever leave their home village, are unlikely to be encouraged to explore new ideas and possibilities. In those circumstances some individuals will ask questions, and gain insights, but they are the exception. So maybe adulthood doesn't value naive questions and childlike insight because traditionally it couldn't afford to.

Matthews, in his work exploring childhood, pushes us not only to ask question about how we define "childhood," but to contrast them with adults, and thus confront our notion of "adulthood." By examining a phase of life we value but only vaguely remember, Matthews encourages us to examine our lives now, and the assumptions, norms and expectations of our current phase of life.

Creative Thinking Self Assessment

For my Creative Thinking class we had to do a self assessment of our own creativity:

1) What do you see as your current strengths?

In terms of creativity, I really enjoy innovation and change. I love finding new ways to do things, in both personal and professional settings. I also try to be open to new perspectives and points of view, and not to box myself into one way of thinking.

2) What are your needs?

From a creative point of view, I think I would like to develop in two major areas. In terms of my personal life, I would like to strengthen my intrinsic motivation and follow-through around creativity. I often have creative ideas, but fail to act on them, or start them but don’t finish.

In terms of my professional work I would like to improve my ability to build support for creative approaches. In the past I’ve often had creative ideas in the work place, but struggled to convincingly communicate them to others.

3a) In what domains do you wish to demonstrate your creativity, or what is the domain of your primary creative striving?

Following up on the question above, I’d like to be creative in both my personal and professional domains.

Professionally, I always enjoyed moving my projects to the “next level,” finding new and innovative ways to reach goals and tackle challenges. I always try to embrace the concept of continual improvement, and to be open to new ideas. Most of my professional life has involved working with undergraduate college students, and one of my goals was to encourage them to embrace innovation and change.

In the personal domain I’d like to incorporate creativity into as many aspects of my life as possible. I think the willingness and ability to think and act in new ways, to be open to change and possibilities, is central to human development.

I have one very specific personal creative goal. I’d really like to write a fantasy/science fiction novel. I’ve been working on the ideas and structure for it since high school (almost 20 years now!), and I have lots of elements in place (characters, plot, setting, etc.), but I’ve written almost none of the actual story. I would love to use this class to jumpstart that process.

3b) How would you characterize your willingness to take risk in this domain?

In the professional setting I’d generally describe myself as “almost always” willing to take risk…but with a caveat. I usually start by assessing how safe the environment is for trying new things. Some settings are really open to creativity, and some aren’t. I’m usually cautious until I have a sense for how supportive/hostile the culture is to change. Once I have a sense for the environment I move forward from there. My goal is to always encourage positive development, but some organizations are very resistant.

In a personal setting…I’m not sure. Sometimes I really enjoy creativity and trying new things, but other times I’m reluctant to put myself out there. That’s something I’d like to reflect on more this semester.

4) How would you characterize your typical willingness to take risks in professional activity?

In addition to what I mentioned for question 3b, I’ll add that I tend to aim for incremental change; I try to find creative new methods and approaches without disrupting everything that currently exists, and while maintaining all the good elements that are already in place. So while I think of myself as open to creativity, I also value what has already been accomplished. Sometimes that’s led to conflicts when I’ve worked with people that wanted to make changes faster than I thought was realistic.

5) Write a statement describing the specific goals you envision working towards in this course.

Professionally I would like to improve my skill in communicating about and building a constituency for change in work settings.

Personally I would like to strengthen my drive and motivation to work on writing my book, and to start developing habits that will help me in the project.

Creative Thinking Journal 1

For my Creative Thinking class we need to keep a weekly journal. This is the first one I did:

In reading the articles this week, it wasn’t surprising that creativity has been neglected as a field of research, or that creativity is difficult to study. Last semester I took CCT’s psychology course, and one of the lessons I learned from the course was how difficult it is to document and quantify the complexities of human experience. Although researchers have made many efforts to deepen our understanding of the human condition, the more complicated an area, the more difficult it is to quantify and categorize.

Creativity certainly seems complicated and multi-faceted. Creativity can be expressed in so many different ways, in so many different fields and endeavors, narrowing it to something concrete and objective must be a daunting task.

As our reading also touches on, there are also aspects of creativity that might make it seem inappropriate to study. The reading discusses creativity in association with spirituality. I think creativity is also often considered something either inconsequential OR ingenious; both perspectives discourage it from being taken seriously. If creativity is something that geniuses have, then there’s not much point in “normal” people thinking about it. On the other hand, many “creative types” (artists, actors, etc.) seem flaky and unstable.

Either stereotype, of the creative genius or the flaky artist, makes creativity seem like something that happens to “other people,” not something that applies to all of us. These unhelpful stereotypes, combined with the research challenges, mean it’s not surprising that there isn’t more support for creativity as a legitimate field of study.

It was exciting to read about the confluence approaches to the study of creativity, because they seem to have made real progress in the area, despite the challenges. The confluence approach looks at creativity as something affected by a range of complex factors, including personal traits and external influences. This broad perspective allows creativity to be examined from many dimensions, and begins to break the complexity down into manageable chunks.

I was also struck by the idea of recognizing the difference between thinking “well” and thinking along new lines. This reminded me (again) or psychology last semester, when we studied how the brain worked. Some people think faster or slower, some can think about more things at once than others, some process decisions in unique ways. Both the biology of the brain and learned habits/approaches to thinking affect how we process information and ideas. It makes sense that these factors also affect our experiences with creativity.

In psychology we discussed that these differences in how people process aren’t necessarily better or worse. Instead, they’re just different. One person might think about one idea slowly, examining it carefully and in a focused way. Someone else might bounce around between topics and thoughts. Although any style, taken to an extreme, has down sides, in general they all have value, and having people with different thinking/processing styles working together can lead to some wonderful results.

That definitely resonates with my thoughts about creativity. There’s no one right way to do it, and multiple approaches can lead to great outcomes. That complexity makes creativity hard to study, but it also makes is exciting and full of possibilities.

I’m looking forward to learn more about both the study and practice of creativity. Learning the science of creativity will give it a concrete foundation, and studying the practice of creativity will just be inspiring.

Philosophy and Embryos

Another weekly reflection from my Philosophy class.

Ethical Issues and Embryo research

One of the central issues for our reading this week is the appropriate status given to embryos in a research context. This issue is tied to questions of when human life begins, but with a permutation. Many (most) of the embryos that might be used for research have not and will implanted into a woman, and, therefore, have no chance of developing.

For some individuals, the fact that these embryos will never develop might remove any ethical issue from the discussion. As their circumstances make these embryos, at least in practice, non-viable, there is no dilemma in whether it is suitable to use them for research. For other people however, the fact that these embryos exist, and are potentially viable under any circumstances, means that they deserve to be treated with care, and are possibly worthy of protection.

This seems to boil the issue of what is an embryo down to fundamental concerns. If you think an embryo, whatever it's stage, deserves the protection granted to persons, embryos simply shouldn't be used for research. If you believe that embryos only deserve protection when they reach a certain stage, or don't deserve protection at all, embryonic research seems acceptable and worthwhile.

Mary B. Mahowald and Anthony P. Mahowald offer an interesting “bypass,” as they call it, to this dilemma. They grant embryos a certain status, acknowledging that they should be treated with respect. At the same time, they accept that the vast majority, if not all, of these embryos will die, even if no active steps are taken end their lives. It is therefore acceptable, they argue, to respectfully ALLOW the embryos to die, and then use their cells for research. By not having the researchers actively kill the embryos, the article hopes to bypass the question of whether embryonic research is ethical. Mahowald and Mahowald compare this to organ donation; we don't kill people (even people that are dying) to take their organs for others, but once people are dead we can, with permission, use their organs to save other lives. Mahowald and Mahowald even offer the possibility that researchers would treat the embryos involved with special care, recognizing their unique status.

This argument offers a powerful compromise, but I suspect that, like many compromises, it would leave neither side satisfied. Those against embryonic research could argue that, having granted embryos special status proves that they deserve protection. Those for embryonic research could be uncomfortable with the idea of granting embryos special status of any kind, especially by institutionalizing special rituals and procedures that distinguish them from other laboratory specimens.

Like many of the issues relating to when human personhood begins, I suspect this issue will never be truly resolved. There will always be two sides that have radically different views who are unlikely to come to aggreement.

However, I think that this may be an issue where the vast majority of people can accept a working compromise. I suspect that for most people, experimenting 14 day old embryos with no chance of ever being implanted, removes the embryos far enough from personhood that they can accept the practice because of the possible good that might come out of it. It is the sort of rationalization that seems likely to be acceptable to most people.

The interesting thing about that, however, is that such acceptance is probably not based on much actual reasoning or careful thought. I tend to think that most compromises like this are chosen because they are the path of least resistance, rather than the outcome of careful analysis. This is a sobering thought considering that we are discussing this in a philosophy class!

In practice, I find the Mahowald article convincing (and would not require the extra procedures for respect), and I suspect most people would be comfortable with the general compromise, but I also tend to think that people are primed to accept compromises that resolve an issue, whether or not they have actually carefully rationalized it. While there are people with uncompromising views of any issue, most of us seem to accept compromise as a practical neccesity.

Philosophy and Helicopter Parents

This was one of my weekly reflections for my philosophy class. We were discussing childhood and adolescence, and I got to write about one of my favorite topics, "helicopter parents!"

This week we read about issues relating to philosophy and children. In one chapter of the book the author describes the tendency towards increasing rights and autonomy for children, and speculates that this trend will continue. This made me reflect on a recent trend in higher education, commonly referred to as “helicopter parents.”

This term is used to describe parents of college students who are always hovering over their children, prepared to swoop down and involve themselves in their students’ lives. When used by faculty and staff in higher education “helicopter parent” is often meant as a criticism, to suggest that these parents are overly involved with their children’s lives, and are obstructing their path to maturity and independence.

I see this as connected to our reading this week because it revolves, in large part, around the definition of child and adult, and the relationship between children and their parents. There are different theories about the apparent increase in “helicopter parents,” but one that has always struck me is the idea that the period of “childhood” has continually lengthened, as we have consistently extend the period between birth and adulthood.

For example, my understanding is that adolescence is a relatively new concept, and that for much of civilization there was only child and adult. Now we have added (and extended) this additional period, which is not quite childhood, but also not quite adulthood, either.

I often wonder if we are now creating another pre-adult life stage, one we have yet to accurately name, from the age of 17 to the mid 20’s, or even 30. In a wealthy, industrialized country like the US this is the conventional period for students (at least those with a certain level of resources) to attend college, possibly go on to graduate school, and then find their first job. Anecdotally, it seems that many in that age range are maintaining stronger ties to their parents than was previously expected. They often look to their parents for practical support (money and housing), but also advocacy and assistance with life issues. This dynamic, in some ways, is extending the period before they become completely independent adults.

One of the reasons I’ve heard connected to the creation of the concept of adolescence would also apply to this dynamic. Parents and families have more resources to invest in the raising of their young. It isn’t necessary for many middle class American youth to begin supporting themselves and their families when they are 13. They are no longer expected to start a family by their late teens. There is room for an extended period to “grow up.” This could also apply to college age students. Families often expect to support their youth in college (in fact, for many it is now the only way to attend college), and these are very invested in the success of their youth.

At the same time, the extended life-span in the US also means that there is more time to be both a dependent and an adult. The average life expectancy in the US is 78. Even if an individual didn’t become an “adult” until age 30, they would still have 48 years of independence. Compare that to Nigeria, where the average life expectancy is only 46!

In terms of the philosophy of childhood, it seems quite likely that the definition of “child” and “adult”, and the journey from dependent to independent would be affected by these practical and social considerations. In American society we have the luxury of an extended developmental period, a longer period in which individuals can be nurtured before they’re expected to be fully independent.

I should mention, I don’t think this necessarily runs contrary to our contention in our reading that youth will get more rights and freedoms at younger ages. I wouldn’t be surprised if adolescence became longer in both directions; with youth achieving more rights at younger ages, while the age at which they are expected to achieve full independence is simultaneously pushed back.

Thoughts on Philosophy

This was the first weekly reflection for my Philosophy class. We were responding to some of the dialogs of Socrates.

Reading: Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito

When I think of philosophy, I think of asking questions, probing for information, searching for truth. I think of philosophy as the search for and interrogation of knowledge. There doesn’t have to be a particular reason to search; the act of searching has value in and of itself.

The dialogues we read this week fit my concept of philosophy in a lot of ways. Socrates was committed to testing and probing knowledge, to digging beneath the appearance of wisdom to the substance (or lack of) underneath. Socrates was also committed to living (and dying) according to what he considered righteous and just.

In many ways, this examination of knowledge, this search for substance and meaning, really appeals to me. I like the idea of philosophy. Even though (as we discussed in class) anyone can engage in this kind of thought, I’m also glad that there are actual philosophers, people that think about the big questions for a living. I think it’s good to have people, like Socrates, that encourage us to examine our assumptions and ideas, that push us to really examine our lives.

Having said that I enjoy and value the quest for knowledge, I also have to admit that I’m comfortable with the fact that the Truth (with the capital T) is unknowable, and that it’s almost impossible to really Prove anything (capital P). No matter how much we interrogate subjects, there’s almost always a point where we simply have to accept or reject an idea, based on whatever evidence we have.

For example, I believe that it’s a good idea for me not to kill or hurt people to benefit myself. I believe that people deserve a certain base level of human rights. I believe that education is valuable. I believe that it’s better to try and do good in the world than to do bad. I can offer reasons for these values, and I can explore them, take them apart, find exceptions and inconsistencies (certainly people have been hurt producing things that I benefit from, even if I never meant them to; what do good and bad mean?, What are rights?). It’s worthwhile for me to examine these values, to think aboutthem , to explore their ramifications, what they mean for my work, my relationships, my lifestyle, my purchases, etc. But I know that I could never Prove that these values are right. All I can say is that, after considering them carefully, based on my experiences and evidence, they seem right to me.

In fact, I would go beyond that; not only do I think these are values I should live by, I also think that they are values that society, in general, should adhere to. So I support laws that I think uphold those values, I vote for politicians who claim to share the same values. I support organizations that promote those values. In the workplace I try to create a culture that is consistent with those values. I encourage others in my life to adhere to those values.

I do all of this, and I can’t Prove that that those values are True. All I can say is that, after careful thought and consideration, weighing the evidence I have, they’re values I support.

I have no doubt that Socrates could shoot holes through my values, could easily point out contradictions, inconsistencies and imperfections with my values and how I act on them; I struggle with concerns about them myself! Hopefully I would listen carefully to Socrates and learn from the conversation; hopefully I will always look for ways to be more thoughtful and better informed, to reflect on my beliefs and what they mean. In fact my values have changed and developed as I’ve gone through life. But ultimately, on a day-to-day, year-to-year basis I have to decide what values I want to live by, even if I can never completely Prove them to be True. At a certain point we have to act on the knowledge and feelings we have, knowing that they are neither perfect nor sacrosanct, but they are the best we have in the moment.

Philosophy and Abortion

I'm currently taking philosophy, which is an excellent class. We've been spending the last few weeks discussing the ethical issues around what it means to be a person, specifically at issues of abortion, cloning and embryo research. This is one of my weekly reflections on our reading:

Our reading this week was about abortion. In addition to being an incredibly difficult social issue, abortion seems like an extremely powerful topic for exploring the value and impact of philosophy. Abortion brings up a number of issues that humanity has perpetually struggled with. What is a person? What rights do people have? What happens when the rights of individuals clash? What is our responsibility to others? What is the ethical course of action? What is the role of society in resolving disagreements around moral issues?

Obviously, it is unlikely that we will come up with any definitive resolution to any of these questions. But even if we can’t find the “right” answer to these questions, as a society we still have to deal with the difficult issues (like abortion) that they impact. Even if there is uncertainty about what is right or wrong, something has to be done (especially in the case of abortion, choosing inaction still counts as a choice).

It is interesting to compare our readings, and their attempt to make a case for or against abortion, to the public debate that often surrounds the issue. In the media and elsewhere the abortion debate is often heated, hyper-emotional, and visceral. It inflames feelings and passions, for and against, that seem very distant from the carefully thought out reasoning of the articles we read. The poem by Susan Tracy and the piece by Alice Walker come closest to capturing the emotional impact of the issue.

That dichotomy, between emotion and reasoning especially struck me during the reading this week. From one point of view, the pieces by Thomson and Callahan seemed somewhat unreal, even naive. Their reasoning, unemotional and abstract, seemed distant from what I think of as the painful and emotionally complex issue of abortion. While I appreciated the writing and reasoning of both, they seemed to minimize the fundamentally human experiences at the center of the debate. An abortion is an incredibly personal experience with irrevocable consequences. Their arguments, while well presented, seemed limited because they failed to really capture the true, lived experience of abortion.

From another point of view, however, their reasoning is what we need when confronting such difficult issues. When confronted with controversies that evoke incredibly strong, often unreasoned emotional responses, it is easy for thoughtful analysis and discussion to be lost, to be overwhelmed by the intensity of feelings on both sides.

Coming into our class, I think this tension between reason and emotion was something I often equated with philosophy. What is the role of reason? Although intellect and analysis is essential, what do you lose by neglecting lived, emotional experiences? At the same time, it is easy to see the potential negative consequences of an over-reliance on emotion. Trying to balance reason and emotion is a perennial challenge when we wrestle with difficult issues.

With this in mind, I really appreciate the selection of our readings. The pieces by Walker and Tracy are embedded in powerful,concrete human experiences, and evoke strong emotional responses. The pieces by Thomson and Callahan are more analytical, approaching the issue with careful thought and reasoning. Reading the pieces together provides a rounded, powerful treatment of the issue, balancing real emotion and careful thought.

Of course, that is still unlikely to resolve the issue! But trying to offer a balanced treatment, looking at not only the for and against of the issue, but also the emotional and analytical treatment of it, offers us a more powerful and meaningful pathway for understanding the challenges involved.

New and Fun Creative Project

For my Creative Thinking class I started a webpage to act as a central resource for my creative ideas. It's probably the funnest class project I've ever had! Here's the link:

www.dreamhavenuniverse.com

It is, and will be, for a loooong time, a work in progress.

I'm testing how to blog pictures using Picasa from Google. This is my cat, napping in a position that doesn't look very comfy to me!