My applied dialectical method is based on an ontological shift and discomfort/insecurity in order to change the undesired anti-thesis to the desired thesis and transform the desired thesis and poietically construct and create the ontological improvement and transformation and learning and knowledge
The ontology needs to undergo creative tension and discomfort.
The assumption that this ontological tension will lead to cycles of reflection, action and dialogue with trusted critical friends who say the truth and are authentic. It is not an agreeable process.
Individuals need to be made question their own beings and experience ontological crises, void and self-disgust with their lives to react, critically reflect, change and dialogue
They must be able to self-critique and self-criticise, and be very vulnerable
Is this process culture-laden? people of previously oppressed ethnic backgrounds. complexities
Is this the privilege of the strong and privileged?
Is it something for the strong ethnicities and developed countries? Can it occur in transforming developing countries and previously oppressed
Are some cultures and ethnicities better at it than others?
Are some individuals better at it than others?
Can it be brought upon the individuals?
How much tension and ontological insecurity and shift needs to be brought?
How does one know how much tension and ontological discomfort to bring?
How does one approach the exercise?
Does one needs to suffer to progress, change and qualitatively transform?
How does one prepare for this?
How does one avoid and control sadistic tendencies?
Is it masochism to indulge in suffering to qualitatively transform?
How does the dialogue is both harsh and caressing, therapeutic and catharsis?
What happens if the crises falls into paralyzing depression and lack of energy to change?
Current rating: 0 (0 ratings)