War in Lebanon, war at work, war everywhere... or is it what I see?
Why people cannot live in peace? Today, another revelation came to me which relates "knowledege-Learning" to social strata... the bottom line of the idea is:
The more the person is ready to change own values, the higher that person will be in society!
Think about it and let me know what you think. This poses a moral challenge... I need to think about more to come up with a unified theory that adds value to my other theories...
Anyway, the last few days were bad... I mean really bad... on top of the Lebanese war which sickens me, the load at work is beyond bearing and to top it up... I felt so weak in the last week that I cannot explain.
Tomorrow we will go camping to the halfmoon lake next to Edmonton... I hope this will rejuvilate me to face the big challenges coming my way!
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Sunday, August 6, 2006
Ya 3ami.. badi ifham
The past few weeks caused turmoil in my conscience at all level. My perpetual disgust with the Israeli aggression against my people as if the Lebanese are roden deserve of organized and scientific extermination faces the new shocking of defining victory.
The Lebanese resistance kidnapped two Israeli soldiers to free up 3 Lebanese prisoners. In return, more Lebanese are dead, the whole infrastructure is destroyed, all Lebanese became prisoners in their houses, 1 million displaced and we are victorious! I cannot understand this logic... I am finding it more difficult to accept this reality... can anyone please explain it to me? I truly want to be proud of what the Lebanese has achieved... I want to feel the we really won this war... I really want to feel this war is giving me a better future... I want to walk in demonstration every year in July saying that we liberated our land (did we?) freed our prisoners (did we?) proved we deserve to live with dignity and prosperity (did we?) I really want to do that... but my logic prevent me from convincing myself... I need the help of those who solve this dilema for me!
I know many of the fighter are going to heaven because of their martyrdom. This is a well believed fact! But how I get to this heaven if I do not believe in their realm? Should I die to live in paradise? Is there any special death? Smashed under the stones of a building... or from debris of a mortar that was supposed to hit some one else? Should I kill someone to be eligible to go to heaven? What if I do not kill and die? Would I lose my chance to the glory of the glories?
Why me, or the poor inhabitant of the beloved south, were not given shelters or the minimum protection while those who belive in martyrdom the way to heave live in bunkers under the 7th earth?
Ya 3ami, badi ifhan... If I should feel proud... I need to know why? Who can help?
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Do Arabs learn? - Part 2
As promised, here is the continuation of the topic (check Part 1...)
Most Arabs believe changing your mind or beliefs is an example of deviousness. They bring up their children with the concept that a "Man is worth his word." I accept this saying when you give a promise to someone else... you should keep it. However, I oppose the extended application of this sentence which prevent an individual from changing their mind or beliefs to the better.
For example: The Baathi leaders, especially in Syria, believe that their ideas, that were developed in the 1960's, are still applicable today. They take pride in the belief that they never change their stand point. That their old beliefs are still firm and strong. Everyone around them have changed their standpoint but not them. They are proud of this stand. While, in my opinion, these leaders are committing a crime against themselves as well as their people. They did not learn from History or Politics. They are not willing to learn to change. They cannot comprehend that they did not achieve their objectives (their land is still occupied, freedom was not achieved, unity was not achieved and socialism is far fetched. These are the objectives of their regime!). Their people are suffering, and they left the country in a bad situation... Why? Why they are afraid of change? Why they are not ready to evolve their "culture"? Is it because they do not know how to learn? (again, check my definiton!)
Another Example: Some Moslems of today, espcially the fundemantalists, refuse to revisit ideas of their beliefs that were formulated at least 200 years ago (Yes. Check Islamic history. The fundematalist beliefs evolved many centuries after the death of the prophet! Check history my friend. They still refer to ideas and wisodm of individuals who died few centuries ago). They refuse to question any illogical concept that contradicts the saying of these elderly wisemen. They are afraid of facing a new realities if it contradicts a saysing by any of these old wise men. Why? Why they do not want to look at enriching the Islam to meet the challenges of new realities? is it because they do not know how to learn?
Yet another Example: In Lebanese politics, many leaders accuse other leaders that they change their mind based on new situations? (Please note that I do not refer to the hypocrites who change their mind for their personal gains... I am refering to leaders who are ready to meet the challenges of new political situation.) Why is this a mistake? Why shouldn't a leader change his mind when he discovers a better way or if politics of today dedictates a new mindframe? Why shouldn't Lebanese Forces partner with the Moslems? Why shouldn't the Moslem vote for the Christians? Is it because the Lebanese donot know how to learn?
These are questions I am leaving them for myself hoping to get an answer sometime in the future.
Most Arabs believe changing your mind or beliefs is an example of deviousness. They bring up their children with the concept that a "Man is worth his word." I accept this saying when you give a promise to someone else... you should keep it. However, I oppose the extended application of this sentence which prevent an individual from changing their mind or beliefs to the better.
For example: The Baathi leaders, especially in Syria, believe that their ideas, that were developed in the 1960's, are still applicable today. They take pride in the belief that they never change their stand point. That their old beliefs are still firm and strong. Everyone around them have changed their standpoint but not them. They are proud of this stand. While, in my opinion, these leaders are committing a crime against themselves as well as their people. They did not learn from History or Politics. They are not willing to learn to change. They cannot comprehend that they did not achieve their objectives (their land is still occupied, freedom was not achieved, unity was not achieved and socialism is far fetched. These are the objectives of their regime!). Their people are suffering, and they left the country in a bad situation... Why? Why they are afraid of change? Why they are not ready to evolve their "culture"? Is it because they do not know how to learn? (again, check my definiton!)
Another Example: Some Moslems of today, espcially the fundemantalists, refuse to revisit ideas of their beliefs that were formulated at least 200 years ago (Yes. Check Islamic history. The fundematalist beliefs evolved many centuries after the death of the prophet! Check history my friend. They still refer to ideas and wisodm of individuals who died few centuries ago). They refuse to question any illogical concept that contradicts the saying of these elderly wisemen. They are afraid of facing a new realities if it contradicts a saysing by any of these old wise men. Why? Why they do not want to look at enriching the Islam to meet the challenges of new realities? is it because they do not know how to learn?
Yet another Example: In Lebanese politics, many leaders accuse other leaders that they change their mind based on new situations? (Please note that I do not refer to the hypocrites who change their mind for their personal gains... I am refering to leaders who are ready to meet the challenges of new political situation.) Why is this a mistake? Why shouldn't a leader change his mind when he discovers a better way or if politics of today dedictates a new mindframe? Why shouldn't Lebanese Forces partner with the Moslems? Why shouldn't the Moslem vote for the Christians? Is it because the Lebanese donot know how to learn?
These are questions I am leaving them for myself hoping to get an answer sometime in the future.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Do Arabs Learn?
Going back to learning. My definition of learning is "the process of converting information to knowledge", where knowledge is self generated information that we personify for ourselves. Based on this, do Arabs learn?
First, little philosophy: Learning does not happen at school only. In an ideal scenario, a person should be learning continuously. It should be a natural longlife process where whenever we get exposed to an information (which could be written, an experience, an interaction with other, or otherwise) we should reflect on this information and translate it to something that relates to us thus converting it to knowledge that pertains to us. This process is learning.
Ideally, this process should happen continuously as long as we live. Weirdly enough, I notice that most religions beleive that this is the essence of death! For example, the concept of the the purgatory in Christianity is an example where suffering leads to personal change (based on my definition of learning), similarly, in Islam, the period spent by believers in suffering after death is an example of a necessary change required to move to heaven. Obviously, the concept of reincarantion aligns with the same idea where change an evolvement happens after death. religions!
One obvious outcome of learning (again, according to my definition) is change, hopefully to a better self. Whenever learning happens, something in our character changes. In my opinion, a lifelong learner is someone who changes and evolves (or devolves?) whenever he or she is exposed to an new learning experience. In such an evironment, change in any form is virtue.
However, in the Arab culture (and yother world cultures as well) this did not happen in the last 300 years! To the contrary, it is basic to the Arab culture that change is a crime. In some cases, it is a capital punishment (fro example if an Arab discovers that opening a dialogue with an Israeli is a good idea, then, in most Arab coutnries, this person is considered a traitor that might lead to death!)
-- I have visitors now and have to leave... this will be continued later... sorry!-
First, little philosophy: Learning does not happen at school only. In an ideal scenario, a person should be learning continuously. It should be a natural longlife process where whenever we get exposed to an information (which could be written, an experience, an interaction with other, or otherwise) we should reflect on this information and translate it to something that relates to us thus converting it to knowledge that pertains to us. This process is learning.
Ideally, this process should happen continuously as long as we live. Weirdly enough, I notice that most religions beleive that this is the essence of death! For example, the concept of the the purgatory in Christianity is an example where suffering leads to personal change (based on my definition of learning), similarly, in Islam, the period spent by believers in suffering after death is an example of a necessary change required to move to heaven. Obviously, the concept of reincarantion aligns with the same idea where change an evolvement happens after death. religions!
One obvious outcome of learning (again, according to my definition) is change, hopefully to a better self. Whenever learning happens, something in our character changes. In my opinion, a lifelong learner is someone who changes and evolves (or devolves?) whenever he or she is exposed to an new learning experience. In such an evironment, change in any form is virtue.
However, in the Arab culture (and yother world cultures as well) this did not happen in the last 300 years! To the contrary, it is basic to the Arab culture that change is a crime. In some cases, it is a capital punishment (fro example if an Arab discovers that opening a dialogue with an Israeli is a good idea, then, in most Arab coutnries, this person is considered a traitor that might lead to death!)
-- I have visitors now and have to leave... this will be continued later... sorry!-
Trans-Paradigmatic
Yesterday, I faced a situation which showed me that I still have to work a lot to become a "trans-paradigmatic" person. This means, to become an individual who can understand individuals from different paradigms.
Etienne calls the paradigm: Learning Communities. This is a concept where he classifies individuals into groups who have common value sets, knowledgebase and experience. Individuals within the same learning community can understand each other with no problem. The vocubulary used has the same connotation to all. An individual from the outside who joins the community will face difficulty understanding the termonology used although it is common spoken language.
Uptill now, I though I was able to develop a width of understanding that would allow me to gel well with any learning community. My move to Canada was a great successful proof, at least for me, that I am able to do it. It worked well with the new Fort Mac community where I was able to fit so well with all its social strata. Even I was able to communicate and understand the aboriginal community although I have never been exposed to them except through movies. I was happy. Until yesterday when I had to perform a "conflict resolution" excercise with one of my employees... to discover, after 2 hours of discussion, I was not able to get to his paradigm... consequently, I was not part of his learning community. And this caused more conflict for me than any solutions... so, I still have to work on it.
When I analysed the situation... and I am still... I discovered that I had many influences from outside that made me inclined to be on a different paradigm... This eye opeener made me rethink about the decision triad... are they 4 actually? Or are the external influences part of the passion instigator? This will require further soul searching.
+
Etienne calls the paradigm: Learning Communities. This is a concept where he classifies individuals into groups who have common value sets, knowledgebase and experience. Individuals within the same learning community can understand each other with no problem. The vocubulary used has the same connotation to all. An individual from the outside who joins the community will face difficulty understanding the termonology used although it is common spoken language.
Uptill now, I though I was able to develop a width of understanding that would allow me to gel well with any learning community. My move to Canada was a great successful proof, at least for me, that I am able to do it. It worked well with the new Fort Mac community where I was able to fit so well with all its social strata. Even I was able to communicate and understand the aboriginal community although I have never been exposed to them except through movies. I was happy. Until yesterday when I had to perform a "conflict resolution" excercise with one of my employees... to discover, after 2 hours of discussion, I was not able to get to his paradigm... consequently, I was not part of his learning community. And this caused more conflict for me than any solutions... so, I still have to work on it.
When I analysed the situation... and I am still... I discovered that I had many influences from outside that made me inclined to be on a different paradigm... This eye opeener made me rethink about the decision triad... are they 4 actually? Or are the external influences part of the passion instigator? This will require further soul searching.
+
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
My Definition of Learning
[The below discussion is a philosophecal discussion that pertains to my beliefs]
To me, learning is the process of converting information to knowledge. Below is a clarification.
Information, is a meaningful data that is accessible to everybody. Examples of information would be written text, audible sentences, an experience that is observed, a feeling that touch us or any other instigation of our senses. Usually our brain process this information and store them in its memory space. This information could be retained in our memory or it could be forgotten.
Knowledge, on the other hand, is a an information that goes beyond the mere storage in the brain... it becomes an integral part of the person whether in the conscience or the subconscieous. It becomes a personified information that affects the individual-self and that relates to him or her only. For example, when you learn driving, you are told that you have to stop at the Stop sign. You can handle this information in one of two ways: either you will remember it and everytime you see the sign, you have to make the effort of stopping consciously (an if usually, if you are busy with something you would forget!) or the information will become part of your subconscious which becomes a natural reflex you do whenever you see the sign. The first case is merly information, while the second case is knowledge. Mostly, knowledge is constructed (i.e. rediscovered) by the individual... but this is another topic about constructivism...
Basically, information is public (accessible to everyone) while knowledge is private that relates to the individual. When a person expresses knoweldge thorugh any medium (written, oral or otherwise), the knowledge become transmitted to the the other person as information. The recepient either take it as information (consequently store it in the memory) or personalize it to make his or her individual knowledge.
Teaching is the act of transmit knowledge to another individual. The other indivdual will either store as information in the memory (thus we have route learning) or s/he will interact with the information moulding it previous knoweldge to create a new knowledge thus evolving into a newer personal reality (thus learning takes place.)
So, learning is the process of converting information to knowledge.
Examples will follow in another blog applying this concept to teaching and learning... that is if I remember!
To me, learning is the process of converting information to knowledge. Below is a clarification.
Information, is a meaningful data that is accessible to everybody. Examples of information would be written text, audible sentences, an experience that is observed, a feeling that touch us or any other instigation of our senses. Usually our brain process this information and store them in its memory space. This information could be retained in our memory or it could be forgotten.
Knowledge, on the other hand, is a an information that goes beyond the mere storage in the brain... it becomes an integral part of the person whether in the conscience or the subconscieous. It becomes a personified information that affects the individual-self and that relates to him or her only. For example, when you learn driving, you are told that you have to stop at the Stop sign. You can handle this information in one of two ways: either you will remember it and everytime you see the sign, you have to make the effort of stopping consciously (an if usually, if you are busy with something you would forget!) or the information will become part of your subconscious which becomes a natural reflex you do whenever you see the sign. The first case is merly information, while the second case is knowledge. Mostly, knowledge is constructed (i.e. rediscovered) by the individual... but this is another topic about constructivism...
Basically, information is public (accessible to everyone) while knowledge is private that relates to the individual. When a person expresses knoweldge thorugh any medium (written, oral or otherwise), the knowledge become transmitted to the the other person as information. The recepient either take it as information (consequently store it in the memory) or personalize it to make his or her individual knowledge.
Teaching is the act of transmit knowledge to another individual. The other indivdual will either store as information in the memory (thus we have route learning) or s/he will interact with the information moulding it previous knoweldge to create a new knowledge thus evolving into a newer personal reality (thus learning takes place.)
So, learning is the process of converting information to knowledge.
Examples will follow in another blog applying this concept to teaching and learning... that is if I remember!
GMA - How Do I see him Today
GMA is the internet name for General Michel Aoun... Today, I was reading about him and felt I need to write down what I felt today... I might change my mind tomorrow... which is a sign of evolution... but today, this is what I feel:
GMA is still living in the "independance" paradigm. He did not elevate to the "interdependance" level (check Steven Covey arguments.) The "independance" is much better than "dependance" but worse than "interdependance."
GMA creates enemies with those who disagree with him even if they agree with 80% of his line of thought... he needs to evolve to make alies with enemies based on the common things they agree on...
He rejected the offerings of Junmblat and Hariri although the 3 of them agree on 90% of the principles... while he made aliances with Franjieh and Al Mur (who traditionally disagree with GMA physical presence in Lebanon) simply because they declared that they agree on all his program... Every one in Lebanon knows this is not true... How can Franjieh create a new Lebanon if he braggs about being representative of Zgharta dominion only rather than a nationalestic representative? I cannot understand it... How can Al Murr agree on Lebanese reforms if he considers Al Maten his small empire? I do not know... GMA wants to have a nation wide multisectarian representation while he aligns himself with religeously driven, small circle infleuncial players and he fights those who created alliances with different "old time enemies" from all sects, religeons and geographic locations... I cannot understand...
So, GMA is one of two things: either he is naive and he is driven by his passion (see my Triad blog) which makes other deceptiv players manipulate him or he is machiavellan who aligns himself with any one who "bluffs" him on obedience... which makes him another dictator (like his old protege Saddam)...
As of today, with Lebanon emerging into the "interdependance" dawn... (see my other weblog), I see GMA is an obstruction rather than a solution... As I said... I might change my mnd because my history with Lebanon made me change my stand point a lot...
What do you think?
GMA is still living in the "independance" paradigm. He did not elevate to the "interdependance" level (check Steven Covey arguments.) The "independance" is much better than "dependance" but worse than "interdependance."
GMA creates enemies with those who disagree with him even if they agree with 80% of his line of thought... he needs to evolve to make alies with enemies based on the common things they agree on...
He rejected the offerings of Junmblat and Hariri although the 3 of them agree on 90% of the principles... while he made aliances with Franjieh and Al Mur (who traditionally disagree with GMA physical presence in Lebanon) simply because they declared that they agree on all his program... Every one in Lebanon knows this is not true... How can Franjieh create a new Lebanon if he braggs about being representative of Zgharta dominion only rather than a nationalestic representative? I cannot understand it... How can Al Murr agree on Lebanese reforms if he considers Al Maten his small empire? I do not know... GMA wants to have a nation wide multisectarian representation while he aligns himself with religeously driven, small circle infleuncial players and he fights those who created alliances with different "old time enemies" from all sects, religeons and geographic locations... I cannot understand...
So, GMA is one of two things: either he is naive and he is driven by his passion (see my Triad blog) which makes other deceptiv players manipulate him or he is machiavellan who aligns himself with any one who "bluffs" him on obedience... which makes him another dictator (like his old protege Saddam)...
As of today, with Lebanon emerging into the "interdependance" dawn... (see my other weblog), I see GMA is an obstruction rather than a solution... As I said... I might change my mnd because my history with Lebanon made me change my stand point a lot...
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)