Educational planning must proceed as a response to demographic factors within an understanding [a perceptual-conceptual-social interaction framework] of the nature of education and its relations to other human-social processes and institutions. The understanding or framework is of fundamental importance: it contains or implies: the value to be furthered, the demographic factors for decision [quantitative or otherwise], the very processes of planning and understanding

Much of modern educational [and other] planning accepts an implicit, or tacit, frame: defined by dominant sentiments and the existing structures and emphases. [Within this framework there have been debates on issues such as feeling-intellect, intuition-analysis, and humanities-sciences.]

The first version seeks to develop a framework which situates the processes in the whole world, the whole of significant existence. Perhaps some elements of any actual frame will always be implicit or accepted without examination but, certainly, much of what is implicit has been absorbed from the cultural heritage or other obscure sources and can be made explicit and evaluated. No doubt, there may be elements of arbitrariness in any framework but this is in the nature of any attempt at trial or growth within evolution. The approach or frame becomes empirical as it enters the arenas of history, experiment and criticism. Thus, this essay describes an attempt to enter into the evolutionary process [the universal pattern of change] in a very deep, dynamic and integrated way. [Particularly, the issues of feeling-intellect, intuition-analysis, science-humanities, etc., are resolved by synthesis within an “over-frame” rather than through an “either-or”.]

The implicit frames are not rejected. Rather, I seek to understand and incorporate their appropriate elements

Subsequent revisions of Version 1 will refine the framework; and subsequent versions will, in addition to refinement, elaborate on the demographic aspects and their application to specific systems of education and research

The background for Version 1.0 is my personal experience, my knowledge of learning [education, research and creative synthesis] in modern America and the West. Specific examples for discussion come from my experience [1] with higher education and research as a member of the faculties at a number of universities in the United States over a period of ten years, [2] with planning for higher education California - as a concerned citizen, and [3] in planning and foundation work toward developing a program [Horizon Research Institute] for a modern conceptual-empirical process of knowledge-action-learning concerned with human-social change/evolution and a coherent range of specific issues

INTRODUCTION

The purposes of this essay are: First, to provide a short outline of the needs of, and appropriate directions for engineering research and education. The emphasis is on the university and its relations with technology, government and society. The second purpose is to provide a total context or framework for social decisions and actions. This framework forms part of the basis for directives regarding engineering. Third, to present an outline design, based in the needs and directions, of the system of engineering curricula, and of a comprehensive, integrated sequence of textbooks in engineering

The basic considerations are: The relation of technology and engineering to the whole of society, human issues and social planning; the roles and nature of the university and the relations between education, research and creative synthesis; the range of engineering functions and fields; the range of student orientations, capabilities and needs; and various economic and resource issues. The focus of Part I is these basic issues. Engineering program and curriculum development are the focus of Part II. Development of the total context or conceptual framework is in both Parts I and II

General conclusions cover: Requirements for university leadership in its proper domains - with emphasis on the university as an independent agent for development and conservation of knowledge; provision of stability against short-term disciplinary, demographic and other trends; proper relations among education, research and creative synthesis; hierarchy of research modes and functions; effective motivation and environments for learning; responsibilities of researchers and educators; development and styles of institutions for learning. [I use learning in an extended sense to cover education, research and creative synthesis.]

Specific conclusions concern realizations of the general conclusions for engineering education and research [Section 4] and their incorporation in engineering curricula and the integrated text project [Section 5]. Data for these conclusions are human, social, environmental, educational, economic, and technological. Conclusions regard: range of engineering concerns and functions; development of engineering programs of education and research; faculty development; institutional funding; implications for engineering curricula; recommendations for a national program of development in engineering education and research, and curriculum/text systems

The System of Conceptual Frameworks

This essay presents an inclusive hierarchy of conceptual frameworks for the understanding of the fields of engineering and technology. These fields are themselves a specific frame. The more general frames provide a means to understand, evaluate, and act within the more specific frames. The broadest frame presented in the essay is the conceptual system of general processes and modes of being of Section 1. This frame is not a catalog of beings and processes but is a system of concepts or general patterns which provide clarity and direction amid the myriad of details and facts

The relation between the more general and the more specific frames is not necessarily direct, but may be through the hierarchy of frames

It is, perhaps, unusual to provide frames of the generality included here in connection with the specifics and hardware of engineering and technology. The purposes of the inclusions are:

[1] Existence of interactions not always recognized. The systems of ideas conventionally used in technology/education policy are not absolute and exist within a larger context. These larger contexts must be vitally included in the critical choices to be made in the planning of engineering/technology options. The importance of this issue is reflected in the broadening of engineering interests as previously distinct fields merge - as a result of recognition and understanding of their interactions

The general conceptual system provides insight in the process of change and choice; and the role of the human faculties in these processes

Inclusion of the more general frames is a systematic recognition of the human-social-environmental dimensions/interactions of engineering and its consequences. This is in contrast to the conservative systems of thought which treat the individual phases of human-social activity as entities-in-themselves. Such systems may be sufficient for short-term planning but omit significant long-term interactions

[2] In the absence of systematically thought-out frames, the guiding patterns will be implicit systems: either of judgment, or built into social processes and institutions. As the domain of conscious social-human action expands, a parallel expansion in the explicit systems of thought to be deployed is needed

[3] The present, preliminary development of the general frameworks shall be a foundation for more general social analysis, policy and planning work to be undertaken later. Development of the frameworks together with applications will be a useful reality check to complement conceptual development

EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND SYNTHESIS

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The issues of higher education and research are a part of social planning. Each part is interactive within the whole. Therefore, planning and analysis of each part is enhanced by being in proper relation to planning and analysis of the whole. Specialism, the planning of the parts in isolation, runs the risk of missing the critical interactions and hence of error

The converse problem, the one of empty generality, leads to inaction

A simple approach which avoids both these extremes is to do the individual planning as elements of the more general planning. The process may be iterative: level₁ - level₂ ... When composite understanding of the parts and their interactions exists, planning can be more direct. In either case there will be the following iteration: planning - implementation - learning

1.1 The Question of Completeness

The discussion of the whole system of interactions raises the question of completeness. The issue here is not one of approaching the total system as an intrinsic whole: we are interested in the parts. Rather, we wish to situate each particular analysis in the more general analysis or nested set of analyses so as to include all significant interactions. The question which then arises is: how can we know that the overall analysis is complete? How do we know that all significant interactions have been included?

The answer is, of course, that we cannot assuredly know that any system of description or analysis is complete. However, this skeptical attitude can be qualified as follows:

Qualifications

We apply skepticism to the skeptic. We question the function of the skeptical framework. Specifically, we note that skepticism may arise from an over-desire for certainty, completeness and security. This can lead to nihilism. A more rational function of the skeptical mood is as a spur to improvement. Skepticism and pessimism are transformed into rational criticism

A foundation of incompleteness is newness and change. Existing knowledge is based in what has been given to us or what has been experienced. There is always the possibility that there are potential and important elements of existence lying outside what has been given and what has been experienced

The converse of this point of view is that we do not need impossible ideals of absolute certainty or completeness, that our given knowledge must have some foundation in evolution [the given] and experience: our biological-social-psychological nature is an expression of the environment and the circumstances of our origins and growth as is our learning and, therefore, these have an appropriate validity within a framework of present circumstance. This partial and approximate validity is an aspect of the nature of our existence and, therefore, validates quests for improvement, invalidates compulsive nihilism in response to imperfection and the possibility of failure

The proper foundation for the psychological sense of completeness is to be in process

We can attempt to be complete with respect to given knowledge

Any dynamic completeness must be a conceptual framework, not a compilation. The framework will be an attempt to synthesize into a coherent whole the broad sketch, in analytical terms, of our joint experience. There can be no implication of uniqueness of finality; yet we can attempt to combine existing approaches

The discussion which follows formulates a framework for understanding, analysis and action

Subsequently the framework will provide a system of understanding for a number of key issues in higher education and research and in social planning

1.2 A Modern Conceptual Framework for Knowledge, Action and Learning

I will first mention some characteristics of the framework to be presented:

[A] It is intended as a synthesis as some of the primary modes of Western thought. At minimum it shows in relation the frameworks of idealism, realism, phenomenalism and evolution. Pre-conscious and non-Western modes are not suppressed

[B] It relates the following levels of philosophical analysis: actual, metaphysical, epistemological, and meta-epistemological or linguistic-logical

I now introduce the conceptual framework. The distinction between idealism and realism is based on a split between knower and known. To avoid this split I consider the primitive element of existence to be awareness-of-change. This primitive element is neither physical no mental but a primitive synthesis of the two. In choosing the primitive element I preferred “change” over “difference” because [1] the intuitive idea of change contains the intuitive ideas of time and of space in unified form, and [2] the idea of difference can be derived from the idea of change

It is now appropriate to mention some further characteristics of the framework and its intended uses:

[C] The framework appears to be founded in the birth of individual consciousness. In fact there is no implied point of beginning for the frame for awareness-of-change can be seen as growing out of the stages of being described under “levels of pattern organization”

At a deep level placement of awareness-of-change at the head of the framework implies the difficulty of separating the real from the process of knowing. In everyday life, living within an established social-cultural framework, it is easy to assign an external reality to the supposed objects of the conventional frames. But it is more than skepticism that takes us out of this attitude and confronts us with the interwoven nature of knower and known. The subjective route to appreciating this interwoven nature is through introspection upon the foundation of an individual’s personal knowledge. An example of a more objective path is through consideration of evolution of patterns of organization: natural-social-psychic-universal. Does newness truly arise in evolution? The debate on this issue is not closed. However we can assert: the answer has its basis in the real and in our level of understanding. As our understanding becomes deeper, our civilization may come to a point where we generally and explicitly understand nature and consciousness as part of a unity or identity. At present this is not the case and, based on our present knowledge, we are forced to accept the possibility of emergence as real

My earlier assertion, then, that awareness -of-change is a primitive synthesis of knower and known is inaccurate. To the best of our knowledge the two may be a unity, forming a primary element of existence. There is no actual synthesis but we tend to understand, validly within some domains, this primary element as split. The real synthesis is in our understanding of these separated concepts

[D] I should comment further on my purpose in including a broad philosophical sketch in an essay on a specific topic. Actually the topic is not so specific. Education-research-learning are universal processes. They must, for their proper study and implementation, depend up a broad system of understanding. At minimum the conceptual framework, implies that systems of value and preference which dominate education/social policy in our culture represent choices from among a number of proper alternatives

A second purpose is my intention to subsequently expand the scope of my published work to include a full spectrum of human-social issues

I will now consider some aspects of the framework which will be useful in this essay

1.3 On Evolutionary Frameworks

Recognition of the “levels” of organization: natural-social-psychic-universal and a suggestion of their interconnection, clearly implies an evolutionary process. This does assume an objective reality for the levels

At the time I offer only limited justification and explanation for adopting an evolutionary framework since the related considerations to be used in this essay are minimal

The world of experience includes multitudes of instances or “facts”. Negotiation or creation in this world is possible through existence of or potential for existence of patterns - patterns of organization in space and of change in time. Without invoking genesis [I mean origins or self-creation, but not creation by an agent], there is no objective understanding of form and function. But why should we prefer a non-teleological explanation such as Darwin’s? It is because of [1] the greater simplicity, or fewer assumptions, of the Darwinian system, and [2] the power of such explanation: form, complexity, etc., cannot be explained except by a pattern of evolution or self-genesis - but self-genesis of new forms is possible only through trial and selection

I do not derive, at this point, any imperative from the evolutionary framework whether to action or to social structure. However the evolutionary framework does provide an approach for understanding and implementing values and for relating human values to other human values and to the environment of human life. I was initially drawn to evolutionary explanation because of its power. Teleology can be explained in terms of the simpler concept of mechanism; concepts of the levels of existence can be synthesized. The evolutionary model is not an academic one but an experiential one which places us and our models in the stream of experience and learning

The following minimal consequences of an evolutionary style of thought are used in this essay:

[A] Recognition that we are involved in creating our future - not merely in solving problems that arise. The concept of “problem” can be expanded to include this creative aspect

[B] The long-term future is unpredictable or unknown. The idea of unpredictability is based in part on an assumption of a dynamic or evolution which is at least partly non-teleological. The strength of this position is its minimal quality. It is not material for present purposes whether the non-teleological aspect is in the nature of existence or of systems of perception-explanation-prediction. As we have seen earlier, we do not know whether the distinction between reality and explanation is ultimately possible or even meaningful

Institutions of knowledge should reflect the unpredictability in question. One approach is to have the Institution of Learning open, not merely goal-directed. That is, a motive in education, research and synthesis shall be pure understanding of existence - of the world, the universe

[C] But, pure understanding cannot be the only motive. In the short term, problems are solved as they arise. This requires that the enterprise of knowledge shall include goal-directed activities

[D] Evolutionary explanation provides a framework for understanding the levels: nature-social organization-psyche/mind-the universal; and the structure and interrelations of these levels. It is true that any system of explanation by division into levels has some element of arbitrariness. However, this kind of arbitrariness is limited in consequence oft the historical interaction between the explanation and its “object”. Further, the system of levels in questions is consistent with and supports evolutionary explanation

This system of levels of organization in existence provides, in turn, a logical-conceptual organization for modern knowledge. Knowledge of the natural and social worlds is clearly important. Beyond this, the universal is included in metaphysics. Metaphysics, other problematic areas such as foundations of individual disciplines, epistemology - the general foundation of knowledge and thought - are included in philosophy. In this account epistemology includes logics. Finally, symbolic systems are important as a medium of coding, expression and communication

Thus a very general outline of modern knowledge is: philosophy [metaphysics, epistemology, value theory, foundations]; symbolic systems [language, logic and mathematics]; natural sciences and information about the natural world; and social-human sciences/analysis and information about the social-human world

Items [A] through [D] immediately above are significant in learning [education, research and synthesis] and in planning for learning and its institutions

I now turn to some conclusions and related issues stemming from the philosophical-evolutionary frameworks just discussed

1.4 An Outline of Modern Knowledge

An outline and its conceptual basis have been given in item [D] above. The emphasis in this outline is the modern Western viewpoint. However, other approaches are not suppressed

1.5 On Planning: Piecemeal vs. Utopian

The negative aspects of utopian “planning” arise from placing frames outside of the stream of experience - the flow of existence. When we do not do this, when we keep our theories, plans, values within this stream [which is by no means uniform but has plateaus and equilibria] we do not commit the mistake of utopian totalitarianism and the distinctions between utopian and piecemeal planning break down

1.6 On Specialization and Specialism

The problems of specialization are clear: alienation of work or activity from their fruits, the inadequacy of specialist understanding, planning and design

But specialization is essential to complexity, to modern civilization, to society, to life. Specialism is the pathological form of specialization. The antidote is to place each specialty within a hierarchy of degrees of specialization

No frameworks are ultimate. All are in process. This ultimate alienation of actuality from its potential is in the nature of being in process, of existence

1.7 What Is Education?

Development of a human being is significantly extra-genetic; however, the capacity for each development is significantly genetic. A significant component of this development is learning. Learning covers the assimilation of existing knowledge and culture and the production of knowledge and culture by research and synthesis - direct learning - at or outside the boundaries of the cultural domains. This is a characteristic feature of human individuals and an important element in the creative response of societies and cultures to their problems and their potential for development

Education is regarded as the social component or input in the process of the development of individual humans to full participation in the assimilation, use and production of knowledge and culture

1.8 An Applied Philosophy of Needs: A System of Values

Some discussion of this type is necessary for development of a complete frame for planning/learning. The following system derives from a set of levels of organization and a group of evolutionary values:

Some observations on the system of needs and values just presented:

[A] Full objectivity is neither meaningful nor intended. The system is necessarily from a specific human perspective. The issue in relation to accuracy and completeness of vision, however, is not a lack of full objectivity or of complete perspectives: these are given. The question is whether we can expand upon the given subjectivity of particular perspectives. This is important in facing the ever-changing scene of human problems, opportunities, and potential

One approach to the type of growth in question is through the development of conceptual systems and frameworks. This involves risk because there can be no a priori guarantee of correctness. Development and use of a conceptual framework is an experiment. There are some rules of good experimentation such as the ideas contained in “Logic” or “reason” and “testing”. A fuller, still incomplete, objectivity comes about, however through the interaction of the conceptual systems with feeling and experience - for reason and experimental testing are rarely, if ever, complete. It is equally true that experience - and this does not mean mere sense experience - is no final guarantee of completeness or correctness but this is in the nature of existence, of being in process. Acceptance of limitation and of potential places us realistically in process

[B] The matrix of needs and values makes no pretensions to completeness. However, comparison will show that it is reasonably complete with respect to most standard systems of needs and values. Further, the system is not primary - it has a foundation and a system of organization

Planning for education, research and synthesis does require reference or some appropriate and reasonably complete framework of understanding and system of needs and values. For, although Learning is a specific institution, the purposes and contents of that institution refer to the whole spectrum of human endeavor. Implicitly, the idea of openness is the Institution of Learning is the best guarantor, at the level of policy, for full development of all avenues of exploration and discovery

However, this essay is an element in process and it will be proper to reconsider and to present modified, improved and expanded systems in future versions

[C] In usual circumstances stability is the base for variation; and variation and variability are the base for quality. Based on this observation, we see that there is an evolutionary dimension to the development of the qualitative aspect of needs and values in addition to the organizational aspect

[D] In the matrix of needs the different elements are not necessarily different needs or values. The elements are not necessarily independent

1.9 Social Issues and Learning

I repeat that learning is used in the inclusive sense of education, research and creative synthesis. I am not implying that these activities are mutually exclusive. In my meaning, research includes creative analogy and creative synthesis. However, some people use research more restrictively. I allow for possible redundancy of meaning so as to ensure that “learning” covers all phases of assimilation of culture and direct learning from experience. I now consider learning in relation to some social issues

[A] From the nature of knowledge, completeness and change as discussed earlier and from a consideration of long-term unpredictability of problems and opportunities, I conclude: there is a value to having mental processes - such as concept formation - which can proceed independently of the “external” world and its processes. I also conclude a long-term value to independence of the Institution of Learning from other social institutions. I am asserting, in other words, the value of pure knowledge or knowledge which arises from a balanced interest in all elements of existence. This balance need not manifest itself in all individuals so long as it is effective for the social enterprise of learning as a whole. This may best occur when at least some individuals develop a balanced interest and understanding

[B] From the need for practical solutions to immediate problems and from the function of learning in improving the present quality of human life, I conclude a need for interaction between learning and other institutions on a short time scale. I am asserting, in other words, the need for an applied knowledge which arises from a balanced concern with all phases of human and social life and with the interaction of these phases with our immediate global and local environments

[C] From the consideration of items [A] and [B] immediately above, I conclude, rather than an either/or polarity, the need for a hierarchy of levels of interaction between learning and its practical uses. This is the pure-applied hierarchy. Of course, pure learning is practical when a complete view, according to the frameworks argued and adopted in this essay, of the nature of change and predictability is accounted for. The interest in things “for their own sake” - or curiosity - is a significant part of all learning and of the genetic programming of human-as-the-learning-animal. Actually, the word “curiosity” is somewhat inadequate for the full range of its possible use in the present context. Consider, for example, “beauty” and the plasticity of the nature of the human sense of beauty. Clearly, one function of the sense of beauty, consistent with human evolution as a learning-exploring animal, is as a deep motive to the experience of things - environments, cultures, elements of environment, skies and heavens - without attention to immediate use

Considerations [A] and [B] above also imply that there should be an interaction among the levels of the pure-applied hierarchy. But no phase of the hierarchy should dominate other phases. “Applied” is not inferior to “pure”; and “pure” is not a mere tool for “applied” learning

[D] From [C] I conclude the need, in education for a balance between: [a] pure and applied learning; the point of balance will be determined by the specific program or class of programs; [b] breadth and specialization; [c] facts-information and patterns-concepts-methods; [d] knowledge-information and access to knowledge-information; this point requires, in addition to familiarity and experience with literature use and reference literature and data systems, familiarity with an organization or map of the whole of knowledge and of the situation of the individual specializations within this map

[E] From interaction-unity of individuals-wholes, I conclude that the best motivation to learning on a practical level is not a total concern with individual liberty and happiness but a combination of this individual concern with a concern for the inclusive hierarchy of cultural circles about the individual; that is, the best motivation is a proper form of patriotism. The best motivation arises from a keen and active desire to be part of the processes of society, of learning, of creation and criticism. These practical and human considerations of moral responsibility are balanced and complemented by the more universal considerations of beauty and self-perfection or excellence

This point is always significant. From the perspective of the decade 1980-1989, it is especially important

[F] The previous item is connected with the true nature of individual growth through the phases: natural-social-psychic/ inner/ conceptual-universal; and, through universal interest, with individual contribution to the interaction: knowledge " function and its growth

2 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL PROCESS: LEARNING AND OTHER SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The primary questions of this section are: What are the constituent institutions o society, and what is their proper relation? How is this determined? The emphasis here is on learning which, as understood her, includes [1] primary learning from experience - again, not mere sense experience - of existence and through creative conceptual and other synthesis; and [2] secondary learning or education. Education includes experience in primary learning. So: learning includes education, research and creative synthesis

From general considerations of organizations of existence such as in Section 1, together with appropriate data, it may be possible to explain-derive the general structure and relations of social institutions. Here, instead, I assume the institutions and structure as given

2.1 A Model of Change

If the “elements”, structures and relations of the world, of the universe, have always existed as they are, then their existence has no explanation and their structures and relations have no functional explanation. To explain existence, genesis [of some type] is necessary. To explain function without circularity, without assuming its inevitability, genesis by selection from alternatives, is necessary. To explain the growth of each individual structural unit of existence without assuming inevitability, some controlling element or information is necessary. The information elements, too, must have had their genesis. Hence the model of change:

There is a partial analogy with biochemical evolution: DNA = information and protein = function. The analogy is not a full one. In the biochemical case there is no direct flow of information from protein to DNA: of course, selection of function results in selection of DNA. The analog, in social change, of the lack of direct flow from function to code is the insulation of culture from change by tradition - but this insulation, or isolation, is not as perfect in the case of social change

Here, I will not examine the relation of the various levels of change and the extent of the origins of later levels as structures built from earlier ones

2.2 The Constituent Elements of Social Structure

Learning is an institution involved with preservation, transmission and change or growth of information and knowledge. There are analogies with the bio-chemical case but these can be pushed too far. Rationality can be compared with structural requirements for successful mutations; perhaps experiment can be compared with embryonic development. The point, here, of making the analogy is not as a source of conclusions but to emphasize the dynamics of interaction between knowledge [culture] and social structure

I now turn to some conclusions regarding learning as an institution

2.3 Conclusions Regarding Learning as an Institution

The present discussion emphasizes higher education. From earlier considerations in this essay the following are evident:

[A] Over short time scales college and university learning should be responsive to the needs of: [a] society and its immediate problems, [b] government, [c] other transforming institutions and systems [learning itself, economic, technology...], and [4] client orientation [students, communities, other consulters...]

In other words, the institution of learning has responsibility to its applied aspects

[B] Over long time scales: the university must be an independent [but aware, responsible and balanced] actor in [or agent for]: [a] creating potential for development and responding to change in all dimensions of existence [natural, social, human-psychic, universal], and [b] understanding existing and determining/creating future needs and values

In these areas the university [learning] is to play a creative role. It is not merely a question of understanding current values [which were created in the past as a response to past conditions] nor is it merely a question of responding to public opinion - even though these factors are not to be ignored. Throughout the history of civilization qualitative human and social advance have come about through the ideas of original creative synthesizers. Some of these ideas, such as democracy, freedom, dignity which are regarded as commonplace [in concept] today, were originally difficult creative acts. Often, such ideas take millennia to develop and diffuse from the abstract phase into common action and practice

The university is the independent agent for and caretaker of knowledge. Within learning, an environment must be created which provides a buffer from the pressure of the short term, of special interest, and of the power invested in other institutions

This recalls, but is not dependent upon, the analogy with information processes of DNA (r) Protein chemistry. The fundamental information store of the structure-function system must be protected against disruption. And, despite built-in safeguards into the process of information-enhancement, the fundamentally new can only occur as a true information [conceptual, genetic] experiment and is finally subject to the test of experience [selection]

[C] From item [B] just above and the long-term unpredictability of problems, opportunities, emergence of potential, and development of knowledge are these considerations of learning and of isolation:

Pure, basic research and creative synthesis are fundamental tools and must be protected against undue influence from function - application and special interest

Yes, there are dangers of isolation...but, as pointed out above, [1] some isolation is necessary, and its proper use arises from aware, responsible, and balanced emphasis - and not from policing the university or institutions of learning; and [2] because of the final limitations of imagination and rationality as creative forms, and because experiment, risk, and error are necessary to avoid functional decay through information decay: trust must be placed in experiment and the self-limiting nature over isolation

[D] From previous considerations and, specifically, as a safeguard against over-isolation: education, research and creative synthesis must be interactive

2.4 Implications for Research Directions and Research Support

2.4.1 Science, Technology and Engineering Research

Discussion: Fundamental and applied studies are both important. There are, indeed, dangers of research into ultimate nature - not only in physical and biological realms but also in the social, human and universal; and these dangers appear in the scientific, artistic and poetic modes of learning. But these dangers must be accepted unless we are to accept mere existence: despite manifest imperfection, the alternative to a trust in some ability of humanity to live with ultimate meaning will result in mere fatalism. The evil empire and Pandora’s Box are not issues

Certainly, problems of use are basic. These problems are resolved by concentration with the institutions, especially within learning, and at the interface between institutions. Within learning, the humanities and creative artistic synthesis provide one medium for the resolution of these issues

Science should not crowd out humanities and art; modernism should not suppress the more primitive phases of being and human feeling - or the more universal

Due to the self-sustaining positive feedback nature of applied research and applied research funding - especially in technology and engineering - and the resultant skewing of criteria, the following effects occur:

[a] Reduction in institutional purchasing power - that is, the power of the university as an economic agent in support of its intrinsic mission: the agency and caretaker-ship of knowledge and culture. It will be argued against this that applied research funding increased the purchasing power of the university. This is true - but the power is not true because it is not balanced with respect to the true function of learning

[b] There is a resultant skewing in focus, when funding is dominantly from mission oriented agencies [DOD, etc.] and industries, toward the current, the near-term, and toward hardware

[c] There is a resulting detriment of basic, fundamental studies so essential to long-term strength. It is not merely that there is more funding in the near-term and hardware development areas. The emphasis on these areas means that, often, the best faculty and students and the institutional emphasis is drawn away from the basic and fundamental, and toward the mere applied. This results, in not only skewing of focus, but also skewing of prestige, influence, style, and concentration of decision power

[d] Just as there is a skewing of focus away from the fundamental within science, there is also a skewing away from creative artistic and human synthesis, from the humanities and social philosophy, toward the hard sciences

Conclusions: Separate funding and evaluating of basic research is essential. Principles of balance and mechanisms of implementation, not mere establishment of agencies, are essential and must be developed

2.4.2 Humanities

These include creative artistic and human synthesis - the source of art, poetry the universal impulse and meaning. Also included: religion, philosophy which spans over into science, and social philosophy

Comments can be made about the humanities in relation to the sciences that are analogous to the relation between basic and applied sciences within science. Compared to the humanities, science is more hardware, near-term oriented. To repeat what I said above: science should not crowd out the humanities; modernism should not suppress the more primitive phases of being and of human feeling - or the more universal; and analysis and intellect should not displace synthesis and feeling

As a result of the skewing of economics, influence, style and power: too often, in the humanities, the endeavor of creative synthesis is reduced to immediate function, to supplementary education, and to justification of existing social norms and sentiments instead of creation of new forms and opening out into the variability and unpredictability of the future, and instead of feeling and intuitive exploration in \to the full spectrum of the phases of being

There is an ancient debate, likely dating back to the early development of human beings, between the conservators of the norm and the true maverick whose interest is outside the pale of social reality. Other words for maverick are shaman, priest, pontifex, poet, philosopher - and the philosopher scientist, especially in their liberating, perceiving modes. From time to time these mavericks enter into the arena of social approval. For the most part they are viewed with mistrust. But we know: they are responsible for the advance of civilization and of humanity

Conclusions Regarding Humanities: These are similar in structure to the earlier conclusions regarding science, technology and engineering: principles f balance and mechanisms of implementation regarding the separate funding and evaluating of the humanities are essential and must be developed

But: surely, it is not being suggested that funding formulas, mechanisms for implementation, etc., will provide what may be lacking in human leadership? This is true. Proper funding policy is one element of a full approach to balance and propriety in the Institution of Learning. But, it often seems as thought the myriad of great voices speaking through the offices of all our modern institutions do not adequately address the belabored problems of modern an and of modern civilization. Who will speak effectively to these problems - and to the potential which lies beyond the problems? We face again the problems of completeness and of human determinism. There are no ultimate guarantees. The ultimate resolution of this dilemma is to be in process. But surely, within, the real constraints of unpredictability and human indeterminism, there is, when all looks negative and grey, somewhere to look to? Individual can look within themselves and to their powers of courage, patience and inspiration. Beyond this, thee is the suggestion in the discussion on “Democracy, Elitism and Individual Action” at the end of this section. Addressing the individual, that discussion puts responsibility on the human individual and suggests the nature of responsibility and action. Putting this potential for individual human action together with the ways and powers of perception of the poet, the artist and the philosopher and scientist: we have something of real human power - the powers of true perception, understanding and experiment

Humanities in Education: Humanities must be an essential part of the programs of all client-students in higher education. Although this is obvious to some, the form that learning in humanities will or should take is not clear or agreed upon. Further comments and implications are recorded below in “Government Action”, and in Sections 4 and 5

2.4.3 Government Action

The comment regarding government action apply within the existing institutional structures. However, some objectives remain the same for other actors. A few comments that apply to individual actors are in the section “Democracy, Elitism and Individual Action. Here, I will add some observations which connect individual action with group or government action; and which connect immediate action with long-term objectives and distant vision. The apparent impotency of individual action is due to [1] expectation of immediate response, [2] lack of preparation and, especially, action without focus on, or development of, values and understanding, and [3] self-isolation of the individual from their context

The following comments are made in the context of government [Federal, State, local...] support and funding of university systems. “Government” can be read as “group”, and “university” as “Institution of Learning”

General Requirements; what government should supply

Resources for the university as an independent caretaker and agency for knowledge: [The caretaker function is “conservative” and service oriented while the agency function is liberal and growth/evolution oriented.] I hold this extended democratic ideal as a value conducive to rational human and institutional action. There is potential for abuse of this system, as there is potential for abuse of all democracy, but I hold that the ideal system of relations is one in which all actors - individuals, institutions, etc. - are independent, imaginative, responsible, critical and communicating

In this connection, national power - any concentration of power - is often the victim of its own strength: all greatness is based in past action and achievement and in the sense of this action and achievement, and so can lead to over-conservatism. The problem of perception and understanding here is that the strength of this type of conservatism is in its blindness

Stability against [at least]: [a] fluctuations in short-term demand for the services of universities which result in fluctuations in resources generated by payment for such services, and [b] over-dependence on hardware and short-term commitments and financing

Science, Technology and Engineering

Support should be based on review of continuing and changing function. Some considerations have been given earlier in this section. Further details are considered in Section 4

Humanities

As noted earlier, the humanities in higher education have a special function which cannot be measured quantitatively and cannot be realized by mere funding formulas

I will consider the implications in two stages

Adequate material support is the bare minimum. This covers the essential contribution of humanities in general education; the ongoing production of graduates of programs in humanities are required for the standard occupations within society; for education at all levels, historians and philosophers in government/policy analysis, resources in the arts at community and national levels, and so on

Additionally there should be special provision for development of the human powers addressed above. As understood here, these human powers include: feeling, rational, thinking and intuitive exploration in to the full spectrum of the phases of knowing and existence in their primitive, modern and universal aspects. They include all ways and powers of perception, understanding, experiment, and action. The modern disciplines include: religion, art, history, philosophy [which spans over into science and the symbolic disciplines - of language, logic and mathematics], and social philosophy

Provision for this development requires: proper or conducive environments and the creation of occasions or positions for such development. In some cases experiment in the creation of appropriate environment is needed. Environment will require that the basic functions of humanities be adequately recognized and supported; “occasions” will require establishment of special positions. Total support of these positions need not be a large fraction of total university system support. It is more important that the support of the positions be definite and stable: this will go toward “environment”, material (r) symbolic appreciation of the value of the endeavor being supported, and attraction and creation of gifted leaders and talented students

Two issues arise. First, whether creative exploration and experiment of the type considered here can actually be fostered as suggested above: there is no doubt that the suggested approach is a proper one. It is an element in the establishment of many [not all - some situations are fortuitous] successful centers of creative learning. No doubt, some experimental endeavors of this type will be more successful and others less so - this is the essential cost of experimental exploration in the creative realm. Continuing coordination and learning through experience at some level above that of the single institution [state or national system and government, etc.] is necessary for effectiveness

The second issue is the one of abuse. This is clearly a real possibility and it is not realistic to expect complete lack of abuse. The general issue of abuse within democratic institutional processes has been considered above where it was pointed out that independent individual and institutional frameworks for creation and action are necessary - and ideal - for effective resolution of abuse and fostering of creative search. Again, the best planning must be at levels above that of the single institution

The type of environment and the type of position in question will not be restricted to the humanities. This follows from the intrinsic needs of the sciences and engineering as well as from the lack of final distinction between the humanities-arts and science-engineering. At least three bridges from the humanities to the sciences can be shown. [1] From the organic concept of the humanities as including “all ways and powers of perception, understanding, experiment and action [action includes expression and communication]”; that is, as including all modes and contents of human knowledge and existence, it follows that the sciences are, in essence, a part of the humanities. The apparent separation arises from the sciences being a very specialized aspect, having specialized methods and criteria, and from usually being conducted in separate academic divisions - and from the resulting divisional dogma/identity. However the specialties are derived, originally, from processes within the humanities and, therefore, “specialized” does not have the same meaning as “peculiar” or “separate”. [2] Another way of showing the same connection is through the historical development of philosophy: the sciences arose as branches of philosophy. Additionally, modern philosophy is connected to the sciences through its role in foundational studies. Finally, [3] the uses and value of science can be studied as topics in social-ethical philosophy

2.4.4 Level of Decisions

While the majority of university positions are created at the institutional level and filled at divisional levels, the special positions discussed above are best created and filled at higher levels. For example: policy regarding the positions and some of the positions could be created at Federal or State level; thee positions would be distributed among constituent institutions; other positions would be created and filled at institutional levels, such as the university level with input from divisional levels. Functions of this approach:

[A] As discussed above, for proper establishment of successful centers and occasions of creative learning with low levels of misuse

[B] The need to have some individuals work at more global, universal levels of knowledge and exploration. As a balance for or antidote to specialization. As a means of integrating the specialties so as to produce more unified understanding

But: this is one of the roles of philosophy. However, modern Anglo-American philosophy has become highly specialized and analytic in some circles, while the general form has, in other environments, been having something of an identity crisis. Therefore, there is a significant function to creating positions - within and outside of divisions of philosophical study - which will be chairs or fellowships for universal study. The “universe” of this study need not be a physical or metaphysical universe, but could also be the “universe” of human knowledge and its criteria, methods and organizations

[C] Proper management of the economic aspects of such programs

[D] To permit development of the school system as including preparation not merely for higher education but also for full appreciation for general and advanced education/learning in the humanities as understood here

[E] Establishment of need or the lack of need for tenure in these special positions and, should a need be established, criteria for tenure

The considerations in establishment of tenure and its criteria are: the functions of positions in balance with keeping abuse at low levels; and establishing parity between tenure in the regular and the special positions

2.4.4.1 Arena of Decisions

There is a problem of undue effect in education/learning due to special interest and from decision without understanding

This is an aspect of democratic decision making. The resolution of these problems is often through consultation with expert opinion during the political process. As pointed out in the discussion “Democracy, Elitism and Individual Action” at the end of this section, this is necessary but not sufficient

It may therefore be necessary for educators, workers in the field of learning, individually or in groups, to enter into the political process as citizens or groups of citizens. This is problematic and does not fit neatly into preconceptions of immaculate political and institutional process. But it is essential. What is needed above the prevalent mutual criticism of political process is mutual enhancement: where all actors enter into responsible, creative-imaginative and cooperative endeavor

2.4.5 Economics and Resource Issues

The objective here is to itemize the concerns

2.4.6 Areas of Decision

What are the resource needs and [rational] wants for learning? What amount of total resource can or should be allotted to learning? What are the categories of [1] resource and [2] learning; and how will the allotment be distributed among these categories? How will these decisions be made and implemented?

In considering large-scale change, a conceptual-philosophical framework for human-social interactions and the content/nature of knowledge is manifestly necessary; economic and resource analysis will occur within this framework. When considering incremental change, the conceptual framework is not explicitly needed for economic analysis. However, there can be no interaction between overall values and objective without a conceptual framework. Therefore, such a framework should be considered before taking up economics and resource issues. This explains part of the ordering of topics in this essay

In the following, emphasis is on the “post secondary” aspects of learning; that is, on higher education, research and creative synthesis

2.5 What is Higher Education?

The boundary between basic [elementary and secondary] and higher education is conveniently associated with the distinction, in a given society, between basic adult function - the level of function which every adult should have to be self-supporting - and skilled, professional, creative functions

2.5.1 Divisions of Higher Education and Learning

It is important, when planning for programs and program changes, to also consider the conditions necessary for proper environment in addition to instruction

2.5.2 Factors for Decision

Intrinsic/Qualitative

Nature and divisions of higher education, research and creative synthesis

Functions of higher learning in social and cultural continuity vs. functions in transition

Areas of continuity and transition: natural-social-human-universal

Demographic/Quantitative: Current Data and Projections

Size and distribution of population; total, and according to classes [e.g., ethnic]

Size and distribution of economy; total, and according to classes [type of industry, income, etc.]

Land area

Quantitative and Qualitative

Effect of learning [education, research and creative synthesis] on population and economy

Type of economy, degree of development

Cooperative relations with other economic geopolitical units

Competitive relations with other units

2.5.3 Methods: Analysis and Implementation

Analysis: tradition, function (r) structure/process, need/value [value = want, opportunity...], modification, learning/adaptive, conceptual

Implementation: incremental/decrement and program/conceptual

2.5.3.1 Democracy, Elitism and Individual Action

One role of the expert is understanding and advice. A related role is the communication between the Institution of Learning and the political process

Earlier, I showed the need for the independence of the Institution of Learning from other processes. The implication was that this independence would enhance the potency of Learning as an institution among other institutions. That is not contradicted by the present position which is a claim that institutional power is limited in relation to human power - and is enhanced by independent exercise of human power; and: full human power is not, and cannot be, maintained by institutional structures. Rather, independent exercise of individual human power is required to maintain institutional adaptability and to: fully resolve human issues, maintain individual self-worth, and develop potential. Given this independent human action, the institution provides a framework for group action

Clearly there is no such thing as absolute expertise. A safeguard against elitism - concentration of power in the circle of the intellectual elite - is a careful adherence to principles and procedures of democracy, self-government

The converse problem is the dilution of understanding, knowledge and information. A partial safeguard against this is in the institution of a proper general or liberal education in the humanities and the sciences. Enhanced powers of prediction among the general population reduce dependency on special expertise; and, enhanced powers of understanding among the general population reduce the risk in referral to specialized experts. However, this safeguard is not sufficient: creation/analysis and appreciation are different

A further safeguard is academic freedom - the equivalent of freedom of speech among experts and in the universities. Free discussion among academic equals reduces the potential for bias of opinion by special and improper interests. This is enhanced by appropriate degrees of access [I refer to access itself and not to its regulation] to academic process. However, the provision of academic freedom implies a necessary limitation on its power - of the individual within the process and of the institutions - to fully advocate, develop and implement the ideas

I summarize: the inherent limitations of expertise, the provision of freedom within the academic process, and the necessary limitation of this freedom, imply an institutional structure within which ideas and their consequences are not brought to their highest development

The full solution, within the framework of human limitation, is only possible when the academic, the expert, recognizes himself or herself as a full citizen. When academics are willing to be independent of or give up the protection of the institution, and step into the open world, they are free to develop and support their understanding and belief to the full extent of their human potential and to gain support in this endeavor. In the final analysis it does not matter whether the potential is developed within the institution. The academic must be willing to give up the one-dimensionality of the institutional career path and to realize him or herself in the full arena of human and individual action

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INSTITUTIONS FOR LEARNING

In this section development of and development within institutions of learning will be considered. In connection with “development of” I will review the idea of experimental development. Development within institutions will be discussed in relation to an incremental model or approach to development. Additionally, paths for the incremental development of new concepts or disciplines are show

Before turning to these main objectives of this section, I insert a preliminary review of some information which will define the context of development

3.1 The Context of Development

The following information has been considered, at least in part, in Sections 1 and 2

3.1.1 The Range of Knowledge

Not all knowledge is associated with institutions of learning. Not all modes of expression are well represented in these institutions. Some of these omissions are necessary, some are appropriate, others are deficiencies. In some cases, bodies of knowledge may be appropriately expressed by a mode other than the most natural one. This is a source of integration, and of learning by analogy. Thee issues have been briefly considered in the earlier sections

The limitation with regard to mode of expression is that primary emphasis is placed on the human-cultural modes. Clearly, there must be some interest in other modes - such as the animal and the universal. The limitation with regard to content is one of cultural significance. These limitations are practical rather than being limitations of principle

The practical limitation is to the phase of knowledge which is significant in maintaining and in changing: environmental-social-cultural-human organization, relations, and awareness. In other words, it is the phase concerned with: expression, communication, understanding, exploration, and change

3.1.2 Change

The following basis, or outline model for change has been discussed: the processes and structures of society are maintained by a cyclic system of interactions between knowledge and function

The absence of decay of information/function, such a system could well be self-maintaining. However, due to errors in the cyclic self-maintaining process and due to changes in the environment/creation of opportunities, such systems are not self-maintaining. Adaptive change/evolution comes about through changes in the system. Models of change which require all adaptation to be on the basis of “knowing”/understanding”/”predicting” the nature of decay or of environmental change are complex and do not allow for emergence of new elements of existence-as-perceived. Such models require [1] a future that is determined by the present - at least a partial determination, and [2] an at-least partial knowledge of this determined aspect of existence. The simplest - and therefore [potentially] most inclusive - model is one in which the future is not determined by the preset; there are multiple futures consistent with the present - at least with most states of existence. There are numerous outcomes - and only those which satisfy constraints of self-consistency survive. Of all such models, the simplest are those in which the elementary changes are completely unrelated to [or random with respect to] the requirements of structural consistency. Through adaptation a subset of - at lest apparently - deterministic processes are built up. Actuality becomes a mix of random/undetermined and determined processes... Teleology is the mind’s valid apprehension of the determinate phase of existence. The mistake of the mind is to read universal determinism from the developed phases of determinate behavior. It is entirely within the realm of conception for [1] a non-teleological/indeterminate universe to evolve into t teleological/determinate one, and [2] for a universe in a determinate phase to evolve/devolve/decay into an indeterminate one. As presently understood, however, the simplest - and the only unitary/uniform - foundation/explanation of all these possibilities/phases of existence is through random-indeterminism and mechanistic selection. As the universe, existence, and life evolve into more determinate phases, the primitive processes of trial and error do not die and remain “needed”: rationality or reason and rational experiment must be supplemented by pure experiment

Some significant modes of change in knowledge are:

Records of successful and unsuccessful changes in the socio-cultural system and in other systems of society/culture: free cultural experiments and records of such experiments

Conceptual/information changes in relation to the use of knowledge; mutual conditioning of the subject-object sides of knowledge

Free conceptual/information changes in the realms of nature, society, mind-psyche, and the universe: free conceptual experiments. Inclusion of mind among the realms implies development in the relations of thought - that is, in rationality. So conceptual/rations selection is included