DIAGNÓSTICO SITUACIONAL

The theory of worldmaking which dialogic reflection is built on is drawn from oriental and occidental philosophies, from works namely by Wang Yang Ming (Henke 1916) and Nelson Goodman (1978). Wang (Henke 1916) was a Chinese Neo-Confucian philosopher whose work was centred around ethics and morality. He believed that understanding the self in relation to the world is the solution to social problems and the path to self-actualisation (van Norden 2014). Goodman’s (1978) work, on the other hand, was focused on logic and epistemology which then led him to theorise about constructivism. Despite the stark differences in the philosophical backgrounds, they both arrived at a similar idea about world construction. Worldmaking here refers to the construction of individual versions of the world based on the different perspectives that we may have (Goodman 1978). These different versions are how we perceive the world through our experiences and they are no more or less important than another (Goodman 1978). As a scholar in the Confucian tradition, Wang believed that the true purpose of learning is to build morality rather than to accumulate external knowledge such as literature and science (van Norden 2014). This moral knowledge is innate and leading a good life is all about allowing this innate moral knowing guide one’s actions (van Norden 2014). Learning is about eliminating selfish human desires that cloud the guidance by one’s innate moral knowing, and a good life is about trusting this moral guidance. Therefore, understanding the external world is of less importance, relative to understanding one’s mind. This led Wang (Henke 1916, p. 307) to conclude that “the principles of things and affairs are not to be found external to the mind”. Wang (Henke 1916) believed that the external world does not exist, and the world is actually a construction of the mind (van Norden 2014). Kim (2017) explained this more clearly below:

This redefinition of the external world is based on the insight that everything we can know about the world is mediated by experience. This experience is made possible by our sense organs. The activity of these sense organs is associated with the mind. Thus, all things that we encounter in our lives are necessarily associated with the mind. The world

153

so conceived is no longer an independent entity external to the mind, but an inseparable part of the mind. According to this picture, the external world exists always in reference to the self. (Kim 2017, p. 1)

Wang’s redefinition of the world essentially means that the perception and understanding of the world is a product of the operations of the mind (Henke 1916). Thus, the world as seen through one’s perspective is built on one’s understanding of one’s world. In Wang’s work, there was an acceptance of multiple different worlds, based on our individual understanding of our interaction with the world (Henke 1916).

Goodman’s (1978) work on worldmaking was born from his attempt to reconcile the logic in the two seemingly contradictory statements below:

1. The earth is at rest. 2. The earth moves.

To clarify, they should be understood as:

3. The earth is at rest, according to the geocentric system 4. The earth moves, according to the heliocentric system

Statements three and four give more explanation to statements one and two respectively. The earth is at rest, relative to the earth in the geocentric system, but moves when relative to the sun in the heliocentric system. However, statements three and four do not tell us about the world as they only inform us of what is true according to either the geocentric system or the heliocentric system. Therefore, if statements one and two are considered true in the same world, then there is a contradiction. Goodman (1978) resolved this contradiction by claiming that both statements are true but they are truths about different versions of the world. As shown in the example above Goodman (1978) argued that there are contradictions that cannot exist in the same world. Puzzled by this, Goodman (1978) reconciled this illogical situation by postulating that there are many versions of the same world, and in each of these

154

versions, there are certain truths that may conflict with each other. In other words, these truths can only be true to that version of the world. Because there is a need for these multiple versions of the world to accommodate these multiple truths, then there is no need for an objective real world (Cohnitz 2016). These versions of the world would suffice because we can only have access to them (Cohnitz 2016). The existence of a neutral real world is perhaps an assumption; however, it is not worth discovery since it does not tell us how true or false each version of the world is (Cohnitz 2016).

Like how theories are built on other theories, world versions are made from other world versions, not made from scratch (Goodman 1978). Our world versions are made from our understanding of philosophy, science, art and all other disciplines that we study. Worldmaking is a complex process that requires constant remaking as new theories are accepted, old theories are rejected, or new discoveries are made as part of our understanding of the world (Goodman 1978; Cohnitz 2016). As these theories-in-use change with more experience (Argyris and Schön 1974), so do the world versions. Therefore, with this understanding, it can be concluded that we all have different world versions that we believe to be true.

Synthesising the works of Wang (Henke 1916) and Goodman (1978), it is concluded there exist multiple versions of the world that reside in our minds. These are worlds built on our understanding of our experience with the world and the theories that we use to arrive at them. Therefore, these world versions can be very different or similar to one another. However, they all are nonetheless true in relation to themselves and no more or less important than one another. Dialogic reflectors are reflectors that have different world versions in their minds. They see things differently from one another, have different values and interests from one another. This hence led to the conclusion that dialogic reflectors are unique knowers and enquirers and dialogic reflection should respect them as so. However, having unique knowers and enquirers in

155

the same dialogue can be seen as rather problematic when conflict arises. My co-researchers and I had resolved this with the concept of group worldmaking.