Hello David and Dick:
I think Dick is right about the “family resemblance” between self-esteem and self-appropriation. On the other hand, there are rafts of differences rooted in this: while self-esteem is psychological, self-appropriation/affirmation is philosophical, with a transformative-psychological component. While self-esteem assumes a basic structure and set of principles and functions that concern philosophical meaning (it works out of that structure and cannot do otherwise); self-appropriation/affirmation brings those to consciousness; and, through Lonergan’s work, with theoretical clarity. It’s clarity in a person’s consciousness is a part of what it means to have achieved it.
There are, of course, some artistics associated with it and that go far in providing avenues for growth and depth in self-understanding. However, I'll ask you: what is the state of art (or history, or any liberal studies, or self-reflection as such) in education today? It's critical clarity and repeatable overt verification, with full philosophical import, that at least offers to heal the breach between the arts and "soft and hard" sciences?
As suggested above, however, the process also includes a clear theoretical component—important if not necessary in today’s philosophical climate; that is, considering (the mess of) post-scientific/revolutionary and 20th century philosophical thought. That is, it’s not only about our philosophical development, but also that we have to revisit what we have inherited in the philosophical air up to now, both personally and in all of the fields. So that self-corrective as well as development is essential to the project—all that to be done through serious (and hopefully well-guided) philosophical self-reflection (not only psychological).
So Dick—from having read my book, you can probably see the differences emerge above between the shorter and longer journeys. Of course there is a self-esteem element here (family resemblance) and even Plato talks about philosophy as therapy. However, one's self-esteem is surrounded by and penetrated with a depth of meaning (philosophical et al) that takes us far beyond the merely psychological.
Also, the appearance in history of the critical clarity of theoretical meaning marks a great divide in teaching to self-appropriation/affirmation in K-12 teachers. (My work is to bring it to teacher education in secular institutions--not there yet, however.) That appearance though, unfortunately, also brings the potential for remaining in several of the counter-positions and related misconceptions on the part of those trying to understand it. That is, It's "just another theory." But of course, it's not.
Nevertheless, it’s not about the theory but about the reality of the human interior life qua philosophical, i.e., its basic structure and concretely-expressed inter-penetrative principles. As such, my observations of K-12 teachers tell me two things. First, being on the front-lines, as it were, of teaching, namely, to children who are philosophically undeveloped but also un-poisoned, they (teachers) commonly recognize the significance of question-raising and when insights have actually occurred in their students, in their language, the “aha! experiences” that occur in several aspects of learning. My evidence is not very broad here, but my experience is that most if not all teachers are at least resonantly aware when their teaching, specific curricula and, more broadly, their programming, strays from what they know, in resonant fashion, is the right way to go about things. Though none (in my experience) can articulate the full philosophical (technical-theoretical) meaning of what their resonance is based in, it IS based in the philosophical reality that they and their students already are, and that the theory articulates so well, and calls us to self-reflection in order to understand ourselves.
Second, though many (what I would call) recoveries are going forward in education presently (a good paper project), not much if any is reflectively and self-reflectively philosophical, or rooted in good theoretical and, thus, critical practice, much less established theory in institutions. "We" are still struggling with that.(Lonergan’s stuff is worldwide in many institutions, so there is possibly something out there that I haven’t seen yet.). From what I can tell, however, and even though we’ve gone through several changes since he wrote, Lonergan’s take on the philosophical situation still holds—it was both broad and concrete enough to do that.
Also, to David, it gives me great pleasure, for the moment, to see that someone has recognized the potential of the whole project for education. My own work (Finding the Mind) is an appeal to the verification expectations of the positivist/scientist and naïve realist (it’s harder to deal with the idealist), but with the severe implications of the actual interior order. My charge was to write something that would play well in the secular academy and provide outer verity for the inner dynamic structure--that can be located in the outer expressions of anyone who takes on the project.
I would love to do seminars for teachers or a pilot project and, in the end, have a group of teachers who work explicitly on developing formal age-related curricula for K-12 programming. (It could be developed to include notions of self-esteem.) We haven’t gotten there yet—I’ve had some bites; but (I’m guessing) apparently the book is still too complex--and I know it flies in the face, from the get-go, of many current philosophical comportments--just the idea of finding the mind.
I haven’t addressed all of the questions that are embedded in your notes, but I’ve gone too long now. To Dick, however: I have thought many times about an earlier comment you made about your students’ disappointed reaction to the idea of a longer and shorter journey, where they were only involved in the shorter (from the text). One thing that might be suggested to them is that the assumption in this division is that they can look forward to lots of delightful insights, deepening experiences, and even internal transformations in their lifetime of formal and informal education, considering that they are open to it. Also, there is evidence in Piscitelli’s work for your assertion that students can actually close down from having been praised though as you know, at the individual level, not much if anything is totally predictable.
I appreciate the dialogue,
Catherine
