The uncertainty about the future of EduSpaces added a further momentum not to use this blog as a publishing platform.

Well, this is all going to change - once again. On the scientific side, I have made great progress in unfolding a theory of elites, basing it's insights on current knowledge from as diverse fields as neuroscience, cybernetics, logic, psychology, mathematics, philosophy, biology and sociology.

We have to observe our own observations and accept the limitations of our observational abilities og cognitive capacities, wether the observer is a social or psychological observer. Elites can only emerge, if - and only if - there are societal observers willing to let elites act as such, freeing the non-elitarian observer from the burden of acting elitarian.

More to come.

Not stopping reading, three books have now been IRIS-penned on both mac and Vista.

http://metteoglars.pbwiki.com/Losing-Our-Minds

http://metteoglars.pbwiki.com/Begriffsgeschichten

http://metteoglars.pbwiki.com/Comparative+and+International+Research+ 

I subjektets memogenese (Treml, 2004) eller semantiske udvikling (Koselleck, 2006; Foucault, etc. ) udvikles erkendelsen af, at erkendelsen er bundet af den, der erkender. Erkendelsen bliver fæstnet til mennesket, der i samme ombæring subjektiviseres og herefter bliver armeret med den subjektive erkendelses ubrydelige panser. Descartes formulerer sin berømte tvivlssætning 'Cogito, ergo sum' (Descartes, 1644), og positionerer herefter det tænkende subjekt som centrum. Den occidentale filosofi accepterer 'jeg'et som apriorisk (Kant, 1787) og vender i stedet sin interesse mod jeg'ets 'væren' (Heidegger, 1927) og dets specielle ontiske kvaliteter, hvor jeg'et er den specielle værensform bekendt med sin ‘Sein’ konstituerer 'Dasein'. Det fundamentale skifte i teoriudformningen, hvor subjektet fjernes som transcendent iagttager af verden og sig selv, og hvor subjektets udvikling som samspillet mellem 'Ich' og 'Daseyn' (Humboldt) afsløres som erkendelsesteoretisk kontingent diktat, fremstår det paradigmatiske skift i teoriudviklingen som et skifte med vidtrækkende følger for de analysestrategier og -veje(Åkerstrøm-Andersen 1999), videnskabelig erkendelse kan bevæge sig ad.

Denne post-ontologiserende tilgang kan iagttages med med systemteoretikerens Niklas Luhmanns teoriarbejde som ‘Bruchstelle’, der gennemfører de allerede før iagttagbare ‘Forboten’, deriblandt Derrideansk dekonstruktionisme og afsløringen af ‘differánce’.
Luhmann skifter fra 'Erkenntniss' til 'Beobachtung' og skifter samtidigt fra et betydningsoverladet ord til et langt mere betydningstomt ord. Desuden skifter udskifter han det overbelastede subjekt ud med systembegrebet og abstraherer dermed fra subjektbundetheden, såvel på det semantiske niveau som på det teoritekniske. Teoriarbejdet de-ontologiseres ved som første at opfylde den Ockhamske nominalismes krav om reduktion af præsuppositioner baseret på teologiske bud eller umiddelbarhedserfaringer til fulde. I stedet funderes teorien på et differenceteoretisk grundlag, der både er paradokst, tautologisk og autologisk (Spencer-Brown 1997, Baecker 1993).

Men trods Luhmanns store teoretiske arbejde trænger spørgsmålet sig om nødvendighed på. Hvad vindes ved øget fokus og arbejde på teorien. Ultimativt kan problematikken stilles op mellem en Luhmannsk systemteori og dens derivater i modsætning til den ”gammeleuropæiske” videnskabsteoretiske semantik og spørge, om det er teorien, der styrer (videnskabsmandens) iagttagelser eller iagttagelserne, der styrer videnskabens teoriudforminger.

Litteratur:
Niklas Luhmann: Iagttagelse og Paradoks (kompendie)
Niklas Luhmann: Einführung in die Theorie sozialer Systeme (2002)
Dirk Baecker: Kalkül der Form 1993,
Dirk Baecker: Form und Formen der Kommunikation (2005)
George Spencer-Brown: Laws of Form 1997 (1969)
Alfred K. Treml: Evolutionäre Pädagogik (2004)
Immanuel Kant: Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Suhrkamp 1974 (1781/1787)
Martin Heidegger: Sein und Zeit, 1977 (1927)
Reinhardt Koselleck: Begriffsgeschichten, (2006)
Nils Åkerstrøm Andersen: Diskursive Analysestrategier, 1999

Ikke alt er arbejde eller studiefornøjelse, så i familielivet udfolder jeg den nyeste lidenskab: udforskning af whiskey-landskabet. Uden på nogen måde at være ekspert eller anden kyndig person, leverer jeg en lægmands smagsoplevelse af Talisker 18 years, der er blevet kåret til årets whiskey 2007. 

"The American meaning of excellence is a mixed message for gifted children. American society cannot seem to come to a consensus about the values of individual excellence and social equality ( Gardner, 1961; Tannenbaum 1998 ). The situation takes form in the way we tell gifted students to do well in intellectual pursuits, but not too well, and always be humble. The admonition to be humble applies to all pursuits, including athletics, but it seems to be especially important to cognitive pursuits. The message is relatively clear: To be socially attractive, one should be slightly above average and downplay one's accomplishments."

Teaching is no research, as research is an activity  residing in the societal science system, whereas teaching resides in the educational system. From this teacher-practitioner viewpoint, a lot of questions arise, both to other educators in gifted education and to scientific research.

Other teachers needs to be asked questions about 'best practice' - or at least 'good practice' in their respective subjects. It's a question formulated along the lines of "How do you do...this or that". But those questions arise only, when students already are included into the specific organisation, the specific school. It is, to follow a von Foersterian discourse, system-internal operations oriented towards maximizing the possibility of succesive operations.

These questions point towards the beginning of inclusion and exclusion. if the criteria of inclusion is the characteristic of  being 'gifted', a lot of first order observations needs to be done. When is someone entitled to enter gifted educational institutions, what makes this individual special compared to everyone else not having the characteristic gifted? From what point in the individual development is giftedness identifiable and a differentiation of different forms of giftedness are to be identified and distinguished. But again using von Foerster, the very important step is the shift to second order observation. Who is observing, characterizing, defining definitions and 'setting the discourse'? In this second order observation, other questions arise and the answers frame the original first order answers, that were given. From this new observational point, values, observational concepts and 'blind spots' then define, how I ( and you?) as a practitioner use the scientific knowledge stored in the massive amount of books, recordings and other products.

When the pupils are included, questions about guidance become pressing. Do they need different guidance - or the same? And if they need the same as 'the non-gifted', what do they need? Are the different types of giftedness in the need of different guidances? The exclusion question also needs clarification, as the inclusion-procedure defines 'thought-gifted' becomes 'not-gifted-nevertheless'. When does this happen, how does this change of identification happen and what procedures manage exclusion and re-integration between the not-gifted?

Can research in gifted education from US/UK/NZ/AU be of any use in gifted education in Denmark? If so, how? If not, why?  

So what it comes down to is an urgent need of second order observation, which through semantic studies analyses and places 'giftedness' as a social phenomenon in (western?) societal evolution. Such an analysis could answer the question about, what function the theme of giftedness and gifted education gives society. One possible answer, following the sociologist Niklas Luhmanns writings, is to see the emergence of giftedness as an ongoing result of societal change, where heritage becomes indifferent and possible future performances (career) of the individual becomes the crucial point. Giftedness then becomes expectation-points of society, from where to expect extraordinary performances in the future. As extraordinary performances may assist society in it's own further evolution and continuation of existence. If this is the case, identifying and taking care of potential 'gifted' does indeed have it's function in the functional differentiated society. But focusing on some individuals is a risky endeavour, as other individuals performance can more easily be overlooked.

This sketched frame does - for me - deliver the second order oberservational point, from where research on giftedness and gifted education becomes operational (and useful). Nevertheless, I have to perform education, whatever science figures out - or not.

Døden gør en forskel, for ville den ikke indtræffe og eksaminator ikke prøve at begå selvmord, vil eksamen kunne gennemføres også for de efterfølgende studerende i eksamensrækkefølgen. For administrationen må eksaminators død også være en skelsættende forskel, for procedurerne for eksaminators død volder givetvis mange kvaler og ekstratimer i en allerede travl og forhastet periode ved dem. Slutteligt gør døden også en forskel for familie og venner, men den er af personlig karakter - vi studerende vil blot have en faglig-didaktisk karakter, så vi kan fortsætte uforstyrret gennem uddannelsessystemets kringelkroge.

Så kære Hr. eksaminator - lad nu være med at gøre dumme ting, det gør faktisk en forskel for os, der bliver tilbage!