Thank you very much, Dr. Pinar, for your comments.
It seems to me that the prevalent discussions about knowledge producing and delivering are anchored within the epistemological dimension of knowledge, which ignores a very important dimension of knowledge: the axiological quest or what is good and worthwhile knowledge. Dr. Pinar’s fundamental question about what is the most worthwhile knowledge draws our attention to this dimension.
Ethics is often understood as part of our economic reality which regulates its development. However, as Dr. Pinar refers to George Grant and points out that economy, on the contrary, is the subset of ethics. For me, ethics is about “becoming a human being”, which does not only set the rules for different social and economic activities, but is residing in the lived experiences of every particular person by asking each one of us about how to live a good and worthwhile life. When we approach curriculum as a means to the ends, we don’t recognize the spiritual and ethical significance of the it.
I continue to wonder about self-knowledge and its sources. In response to Dr. Pinar’s historical view of self-knowledge, I believe history is not only about the historical fact that we need to learn about, but also a historical awareness that we adopt and a historical stance we hold, using Dr. Pinar’s comment “our future is in the past”. In today’s era, the flaming discourses around presentism and futurism, ignited by the development of technology, seems to flatten our reality to the present and project it to the future.
I now wonder how self-knowledge of a person is related to his own subjectivity and other people. It seems to be very fluid and embodied concept to me. If we understand one’s subjectivity as the inner space of a person, does self-knowledge of a person reside in the space? Does self-knowledge of person mingle with emotions or awareness of emotions? How does self-knowledge of a person in relation with others’?