7 March 2011

Dear Nick,

I am also excited by this exchange. Brilliant. A chance to write freely with no parameters, letting the heart speak openly, hopefully passionately! As the Little Prince says, "on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." That is, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.

To this end, I think it telling that the idea I was most excited to respond to in your letter was the idea you wrote came from your "pen taking you elsewhere." Go! Go I say!

That part? This idea of decisive indecisiveness. What is the source? This passivity?! Why? And who? is there fear of risk taking? Of failure of embarrassment? Is there a lack of self-efficacy? Is it defiance, an instinctual response to subconsciously recognized social injustice and power imbalance? (I'm thinking in terms of what we teach, the language we use, the sources, the inescapable and avoidable baises, on and on.) Or is it positive? Is there a trust in, and therefore deference to, the teacher? We often get frustrated at the idea of students "just wanting to be told the answers." Why? If I'm in their shoes, I don't want to waste time needlessly - I want the answer so I can know, move on, and ask more questions! It would be out of a desire for more learning that I would want the answer. Out of a desire for inquiry.

Also, incredible story about your student and "The Stranger." Brilliant, the idea that "meaningless actually opens up more possibilites." For one, that's a beautiful sight into spiritual freedom (though wherein lies the responsibility?). More exciting is, of course, the inquisitive and willing learner. And how fortunate that her style so closely matched yours! That you found each other in this sense. You, as both teacher and you, together simultaneously, come alive. And "the world needs people who have come alive." A testament to the importance of authentic self.

A Jesuit priest I once knew, named Fr. Arthur, said that people should only teach their own styles of prayer. That if I pray a certain way, that is how I ought to teach others prayer. It is authentic this way. Meaningful. Above all, not faked at all. Here is an opportunity to teach your style of learning!

This gets at, or starts to get at, my fascination with respect. In your anecdote there was an obviously abundant amount of mutual respect. Inspiring! But this is not the norm. Disheartening.

Why do we force this one way of learning? Sure, differentiation, but who are we kidding? We differentiate within strict parameters. Our schools are so narrow. They are set up for a student like yours, but are forced full of so many who do not need to learn like this.

And they shouldn't! Society is responsible for educating its next generation. We don't want a nation of armchair theorists. We need a handful of passionate ones (like yourself) but the more pretending there is, the messier things become. Can we investigate our values?

What is our goal, ultimately? Through it all? In other words, what is the meaning of life? 42? Fair enough.

But respect is up there. Respect, love for our fellow humans. No matter the context, the other. Why else do we hold Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela in such high esteem? And the Dalai Llama, and Thich Naht Hahn? In them we see our ideals becoming embodied, first and foremost among them, respect for others.

How do we reflect this in society? To begin with, respect of self, others, and the space one is in, and the unknown. What, exactly, does this look like though?