In the future I want to collect together all that is said about diversity in the various other pages, but I will start by just putting down some unconnected jottings.
Especially when acting together, we often find ourselves seeing a problem, and finding that going in the opposite direction gives us a satisfactory answer; we believe, even if we don't admit it, that we have finally found 'the answer'. Thatcher's moneyterism was 'the answer' to socialism. Constructivists is 'the answer' to positivism. And so on. This is dialectical thinking.
But we can never say we have found 'the answer'. Not just because it is rather arrogant to think so, but for a much deeper reason. The reason is that in many such cases the move from one pole to its opposite involves the elevation of one aspect to the elevation of another, that had previously been ignored. But in moving to the second aspect, we are still ignoring yet others. And, worse, we are unaware of doing so. Not least because we are so intent on supporting the new aspect that we do not normally look around for others that we might be ignoring. Rather, we are actively engaged in a campaign to show that previously our favoured aspect was ignored, and in showing its importance, and also exploring it and developing theory and practice around it. These activities are, of course, valid and important; it's just that we don't give time and effort to exploring other aspects, and usually we do not have sufficient humility to recognise in practice and attitude that just as 'they' were narrow, so might we be.
So, because of the diversity of aspects, we are always ignoring one or the other, as the decades and centuries pass under us, and are extremely unlikely ever to reach a state in which we give all of them their proper due.
Compiled by Andrew Basden. You may use this material subject to conditions.
Number of visitors to these pages: . Written on the Amiga with Protext.
Created: 17 October 1999. Last updated: 7 February 2001 copyright, email. 21 November 2005 .nav, .end.