I’m delighted that you found a great reason to respond to my earlier remarks. Very diplomatically, you wished “to constructively disagree” with me. In return, I’ll say that there’s no need to be constructive. Sometimes destructively focussed actions are better. My use of the term intelligent deserved to be destroyed. Both you and Dr A. did that. I’m grateful, happy and humbled.
Einstein is reported to have said, “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits”. I envy those who have a strong inner sense of truth. My wife has that. She can reduce life’s complexity to very simple dichotomous choices easily. I ask her to consider possibilities to no avail. I spend an eternity in confusion, choice and mapping. She gets things done.
For now–and this ‘now-ness’ is crucial–I’m willing to be swayed by the lure of eternal thought, by the rabbit hole searches, by being carried here and there until I know the rough landscape of advanced thought. This EdD time (at least the first few modules) is the space for me to see what’s out there. I chose the EdD over a PhD partly because I live in ambiguity and have no clarity. I’m getting a sense of the ambiguity others live with. These past ten weeks have shown me in the works of others a glimpse of what Perry (1970, cited in Richardson, 2013) calls commitment.
What these last two paragraphs are saying is that I fully endorse your sentiment that there’s a limit to thought and that purposeful action is required at the end of the day. Or rather, before the end of the day.
On a different point, let’s continue the discussion about the MBTI later. This is a mine-field. I’ve been rapped over the knuckles twice today because of a silly mistake (from which I hope I’ve learnt a lot) so I don’t feel inclined to use this opportunity to re-establish my mood. I’m really looking forward to the next module where our discussions can continue.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). Epistemological development in higher education. Educational Research Review, 9, 191–206.