tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4717220359532645973.post2620334987455351662..comments2023-04-09T05:54:18.997-04:00Comments on Learning Complexity: #CCK11: Mapping the Complexity of Knowledgekeith.hamonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08404376705918243534noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4717220359532645973.post-1726730221476255482011-03-20T08:39:54.937-04:002011-03-20T08:39:54.937-04:00Thanks for the comments, and I apologize for not r...Thanks for the comments, and I apologize for not responding sooner.<br><br>LeahGrrl, you identify precisely the kind of <i>picture</i> I'm looking for when you mention Hans Rosling's shape shifting graphs. As I mention in <a href="http://idst-2215.blogspot.com/2011/03/cck11-knowing-and-points-of-view.html" rel="nofollow">a later post</a>, a free online tool called <a href="http://www.spicynodes.org" rel="nofollow">SpicyNodes</a> allows for a bit more dynamism in building maps (there are similar other tools out there, so explore). The problem with SpicyNodes, however, is that it still remains two-dimensional, and I'm looking for a four-dimensional tool: one that allows me to create and move through a three-dimensional space over time. If you know of that tool, please send it to me. :-)<br><br>And Stu, you anticipate exactly the primary issue for us and our knowledge: how "to negotiate some common understandings within a topic or discipline without compromising our individual and very fluid understanding of the whole." <i>Negotiate</i> is a wonderful word for this process, which I borrow from Edgar Morin's work <i>On Complexity</i>, in which he proposes a dialogic principle (a negotiation) that engages any individual not only with other people, but with her entire ecosystem. I like very much the idea of negotiating with the Universe. So far, we seem to have arrived at enough shared understanding to keep us both functioning. :-)keith.hamonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08404376705918243534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4717220359532645973.post-86275125913200887312011-03-06T11:57:51.580-05:002011-03-06T11:57:51.580-05:00Keith:Your description and images ring very true a...Keith:<br><br>Your description and images ring very true and speak to the complex nature of learning and in many cases the misguided nature of traditional learning structures. I definitely agree that it is impossible for two learners [you and U1] to have exactly the same understanding of something [like connectivism for example] because of the myriad of different influencing factors. However, is it not possible for two learners to negotiate some common understandings within a topic or discipline without compromising our individual and very fluid understanding of the whole. Not that a complete understanding is possible.<br><br>StuStu Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10031978423730252771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4717220359532645973.post-37984912352900050202011-03-05T14:43:41.940-05:002011-03-05T14:43:41.940-05:00Hi Keith,I like your images, and I share your wish...Hi Keith,<br>I like your images, and I share your wish to put them all into motion (I mentioned in an early post on my blog at http://wp.me/p1iJd6-14 that it would be cool to do so in a Hans Roslng kind of way--shape-shifting points over time). I always appreciate your willingness to dig deep, too. Here, I especially appreciate your parsing out "understanding" in a useful way. Authoritative pronouncements (Connectivism Is A So Therefore B Is True) always have the effect of irking me, so I like the genuine questioning you always bring to these subjects.<br><br>Best,<br>Leahleahgrrlhttp://leahgrrl.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com