Tag: Developmental Stages

Object and Process oriented languages and human development

(Note, the Blackfoot people have a process-oriented language, which is much more strongly verb-based, while English and most other languages are object/noun based.)

Blackfoot Indian Brave

A friend of mine asked:

Do the Blackfoot people go through a phase where they need to have conceptual boxes, and then learn to transcend the need to reify these artificial demarcations, or do they simply use a different process all together from the very start? So much of western development theory assumes that moving beyond nice neat conceptions is a phase that we can move beyond, but assumes it is a necessary phase; perhaps it is only necessary for those who are raised to think in a linear fashion?

Which prompted the following response:

I have this feeling that on a macrocosmic scale, humanity does have to “go through” a stage of categorical reification and abstraction in order to develop certain potentials relating to our “task” if you will, of becoming beings of freedom and love. However, this doesn’t mean that every single human being has to do this, or in the same way (ex: the West has played such a huge role in this particular part of the human drama, while other areas have different things to bring to the play).

I imagine that it would be possible to ‘use different processes from the start’, and while there will be similarities in developmental stages, these won’t always match up exactly depending upon what is being brought forth by the language, culture, and individual elements, and so forth. It’s not like a Blackfoot can’t identify ‘a chair’ if they don’t want to… it’s just that doing so is a reduction or rather abstraction from a different way of understanding, just like if I were to reduce you to a particular image I had of you that came from one specific interaction, and then communicated only this aspect of you when I spoke about you to others or thought of you myself.

Both the ‘objective’ or reified view of we weirdo Westerners, AND the process or time-sensitive view of people like the Blackfoot are ‘correct’. The question is more, to me, about the overall appropriateness of each view given microcosmic and macrocosmic pictures of individual and collective development. Sometimes, identifying “this chair” as a completely abstracted and separate, non-evolving object is appropriate. Sometimes, seeing the flow of events that entwine themselves into the constantly becoming activity and relations that make up the chair through time is more appropriate.

BUT, the imporant thing is that we develop the capacity to have both these (and other) options open to us, so we aren’t locked in by our habits of perception. We — humanity as a whole — has won the capacity to objectify the world through a long and arduous and pain-filled path. It is something that we shouldn’t abandon — rather we need to learn how to use this capacity responsibly, ultimately in service to the development of our freedom to become beings who can love not by virtue of a given nature (this would describe an angel), but through what has come to us only by virtue of the path we have walked, i.e. in freedom.

Of course, this just a picture, a way to imagine.

March 18, 2009
Universal developmental stages? – A continuation

A friend continued:

Does this mean there is no universal developmental stages that we each pass through simply due to the fact that we are all human? What are the underlying strata, the ground upon which both these explicate perspectives emerge? What is the implicate order regarding human development?

Prompting the response:

As for universal developmental stages… yes and no. I guess I would point to the process of recapitulation. You, as a physical being, go through stages in development which are a unique recapitulation of stages that have individually been achieved over vast timescales. But, as modern beings, because what was achieved so long ago by (or rather ‘with’ and ‘through’) our ancestors (going ALL the way back, here) no longer requires the same kind of attention that it did when the developments were being worked out, we speed through these stages without any cognizance. We also don’t have to experience the full drama of the development of those stages; we only get something like the form of an image of those stages, more like a hint or better a ‘gesture’ of those past stages. The result is that instead of, say, having to develop anew the ability to breath air from scratch, we simply find ourselves with a capacity for breathing.

The particular capacities we are thus ‘given’ are not “universal” in the absolute sense that ALL beings do this. But it is close to universal when considering humans. We are the ongoing unfolding of our past — all of our past. And some capacities require more of us now than they will in the future, and others require less of us not than they did in the past. Thus, we are no longer challenged so much by the development of breathing, but have a more difficult time with upright walking. It is easier to have a mental picture than it is to dissolve a mental picture into nothing. It is easy to feel rage, but much more attention is required to feel compassion. These are tracings of past and future capacities, and we’re constantly in the flow of their development (and there is also a process of dissolution of capacities… but we’ll not go into that).

Physical Recapitulation

And there are always exceptions. Some people who are born now are actually working out dramas that the bulk of humanity dealt with eons ago, and others are born who are dealing with developing capacities that the bulk of humanity will likely encounter only in the future. So it’s not a simple question of everyone being equal. Diversity is everpresent.

Additionally, some of the capacities that have been given through our long history are only partially so. Or rather, their development has only proceeded to a certain stage, beyond which any development or progression depends upon actions taken here and now. The fulfillment of these capacities is not a given, but requires actual work on our part. For example the capacity for free ethical action that comes from within the individual; this is not something that just everyone ‘has’ — it requires a certain amount of work. So too the capacity to perceive accurately in the spiritual worlds requires individual work; it’s not yet capable of being given as an already-developed gift to the whole of humanity (like vision is) because the work required for that is still being done.

The upshot of all this is that the situation is very complex and intertwined with multiple streams, working from the past and (sorry for sounding weird) from the future. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ when it comes to these things, because we’re constantly dealing with a whole variety of interpenetrating levels and times. Nevertheless, there are ‘global’ patterns at work, which can be perceived if one knows how to look. David’s books very directly hint at this. Also examine Richard Tarnas’ book The Passion of the Western Mind. These are works in the popular domain which point to the sense of ongoing, non-random, directional development of consciousness and human beings. (Of course, one could find a much more direct treatment of this aspect if one has the desire to look into more esoteric sources, such as Steiner.) This is where you start to find a way into the question of the Implicate Order with respect to human development…

March 16, 2009
Waldorf and Montessori – a tiny perspective

There is often confusion about the differences between Waldorf and Montessori methods of education. Having been a Waldorf teacher for six years certainly puts me in a biased position, but potentially one that can also offer some perspective on the matter.

The Waldorf pedagogy recognizes that how one approaches the child is keyed closely to the developmental stages that naturally occur as the child grows, including a conscious awareness of not just the physical but also the life-body (etheric), desire/sense-body (astral), and ego realms. It is a major tenet of the Waldorf method that these developmental stages are not either random or completely individualistic, but partake of physical and spiritual patterns that have to do with the wider picture of the evolution of the human being in general. In other words, Waldorf pedagogy has a deeply spiritual background, and views education as a therapeutic, health-producing activity. The health in this case is produced not simply in the physical realm (although of course education works here too), but addresses the underlying growth-forces, the emotional, the intellectual, and the moral realms as well.

To give you an example of how Waldorf might differ from Montessori, a Waldorf educator (particularly regarding early childhood / kindergarten / first few grades) would see that the level to which Montessori educators allow ‘free reign’ of the children’s predelictions can potentially be harmful, because this brings in aspects of the child’s astral body (life of desire) too early, which can result in the hampering of the development of the child’s sense of interconnectedness, feelings of social responsibility, and sense of humility. In contrast, the Waldorf educator provides a robust curricula that addresses a wide array of inner potentials that the child may not be conscious of, let alone would choose to exercise, but which need care and environmental response to come to fruition.

The child cannot be asked to take on these aspects of self-development in a conscious, self-reflective way, because this requires the benefit of a well-formed and integrated ego which they can only enjoy once the education has taken effect! In other words, the educators are the ones which must provide for an environment which is conducive to the all-around present and future health of the growing child. Providing such environments is the art of educating, and it is important that what is presented to the child find deep resonance in the particular experiences that accompany the child’s inner life as they grow from year to year.

The pegagogical background of Waldorf education is geared towards identifying how the various aspects that make up the growing human being (physical, etheric, astral, ego) uniquely manifest themselves at different stages of development, so that educators can craft potential experiences which meet their changing needs–many of which the child is not able to consciously recognize or express, but whose recognition by the educator is essential if they are to be met in a healthy and integrated way.

You can think of it a bit like this: if you plant a seed in the soil, you wouldn’t want to do so at the wrong time of the year. You also wouldn’t treat the seed in the same way as you would a grown plant, or a plant that is about to produce fruit. Each stage of the plant’s growth requires (and is evolutionarily keyed to) specific environmental potentials, and it is the processual, rhythmically experienced flowing from stage to stage, environmental condition to environmental condition, that nurtures the overall health of the plant as a whole, over its entire life-cycle.

Montessori education can (of course this depends on the specific conditions under consideration, including the particular child) serves to maximize particular potentials of the child, which can work against the overall development of the child if allowed to proceed too strongly or for too long. It’s like giving too much fertilizer to a young plant, which cannot process the nutrient efficiently or quickly enough, resulting in stunted growth, overgrowth, or other imbalances.

Of course, when speaking of children, we are talking about things like developing a sense of community, of fairness, of warmth of soul, of enjoyment of diversity, of respect for otherness, and so forth. Montessori does an excellent job of promoting individuality, and the availability of the arts is fantastic and a terribly under-represented realm of human experience in education. Long term Montessori students may be more likely to find themselves in a particular realm of experience–one that they have chosen, yes–but which may rigidify their soul forces so that they have a harder time appreciating other realms of human experience and effort.

Creativity should not be too linked to personal desire, because the deepest source of creativity is–in the end–always found beyond the part of ourselves that initiates desire. It is rather about balance, or better yet harmony between structure and freedom, contraction and expansion, the inner and the outer. If we do not pay attention to the subtle shifts in the inner life of the developing child, we will miss the opportunities made possible by meeting the associated needs with the appropriate challenges and experiences, or we may alternately overdevelop and underdevelop specific patterns that take place in the child’s soul life.

See also:

http://www.steinerstorehouse.com/blog/archives/206 (an article written by someone who has been a teacher in both educational systems)

http://www.jnorth.net/mindmaps/personal/parenting/parenting%20research/Waldorfvs.Montesorri.html

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=199390

January 19, 2009