Theories, Concepts, and Knowledge

I am so looking forward to Star Wars IX. Really. I enjoy the fan theories and have enjoyed the theories since it was announced we would get three more Star Wars movies. Not all theories have the same value from my perspective and yet each provides a glimpse into the mind of the person promoting a concept, hypothesis, or theory. 

The other thing that strikes me is that around the fan theories of Star Wars (or take your pick: Star Trek, Sherlock, and so forth) is that, for the most part, while robust discussion ensues, they are largely cordial. With various “camps” pointing out fallacies of the assumptions (or FOTAP: Fallacy of the Assumed Premise). There is much to learn from the insights of the various groupings of perspectives.

I was fortunate to explore many learning theories during my M.Ed program. Three dominate “camps” of research dominate: 1) Behaviorism; 2) Cognitivism; 3) Constructivism. Much has been written in regards to each one and I see each succeeding concept containing the prior ones. And that leads me to seeing that there is a truth in each but none contain the complete understanding of human learning and development. Peter Jarvis has written a book “Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning” in which he explores these three and many others in an effort to get to a big picture of how we learn and develop. Bringing together, if you will, a variety of fan theory favorites (and some obscure). Many researchers study such a focused view that it is challenging to see another perspective and when looking for a big picture understanding some details that work in one environment might not fit so well in understanding the whole. In any case, much of how we see learning and human development stem from our personal perspectives. Most research I read today seems to appreciate the diversity of thought and perspective and that a given study is only a bit of the whole.

Somehow that mindset and politeness disappears when we move to politics and religion. I can’t help but see being on the left or the right (whatever those are) as differences of perspective and frames of reference. We might agree on certain problems in society but disagree with how to solve them.

Religion is similar. Not only do we have a variety of divine concepts, we have non-divine concepts. As it comes to divine concepts we divide into global religions and further splinter from within those. So much so that history is littered with death and chaos as one religious ideology has killed in the name of their deity. This is certainly true within Christianity and within the protestant reformation. Some hold that unless you believe as they do you can’t be a real Christian. They may kill you or simply assassinate your character. Oh Well.

Within a given faith tradition there are many differing perspectives on any number of variety of topics. One that seems to be a favorite centers around theories of “atonement”. Simply by way of example, it seems that people fight over one theory or another and often condemn one another for the concept held. Like learning and human development I prefer a big picture perspective and find the fights over which one (usually one of four: Christ Victor; Moral Influence; Randsom; Penal Substitution) are incomplete or at the very least suffer from FOTAP and limited perspective. Yet it is undeniable that we all have a preference based on who we are (what we have learned and how we have developed). If one holds a particular theory as true others are classified by that same one into an other theory, even when the other may not hold it as true! (Does this ring true in politics too? If you aren’t this, then you are this! or if you are pro this than you are that).  

I digress. And thus, as I seek a comprehensive understanding of human learning and development, I seek a big picture of politics and religion. In the Seventh-day Adventist faith tradition A. Graham Maxwell pursued this and introduced me to an unresting pursuit of the big picture. Also in my tradition Ty Gibson generally paints a larger view. In the Anglican tradition N.T. Wright works to this end. Richard Rohr orients this way in the Roman Catholic tradition. Other protestants that come to mind are Tim Mackie and Greg Boyd. 

For the Christian, there is only one who has absolute truth: The Christ - Jesus - the fullness of the character God revealed on earth. The one in whom the Jewish story is brought into full clarity (for the Christian at least). All others are contributors, some study deeply one concept or theory and others are left trying to see how these fit into the larger narrative. Some are refiners of other contributors.

I find I have said to people that I may agree or disagree in whole or in part with any number of contributors as I seek to understand with all of who I am, what I have learned and how I have developed, just as they have.  The truth as revealed by Trixy is that I don’t completely agree even with myself, so I cannot completely agree with anyone else. Part is my own limitation, but is that the other is incomplete. As a Christian I would prefer to rest (and wrestle) on the truth revealed in Jesus as I know him and give that to another. And that is a discussion/reveal for another time.