Dewey on "The Great Stand Back"

Thinking begins in what may fairly be called a forkroad situation, a situation which is ambiguous, which presents itself as a dilemma, which proposes alternatives.  As long as our activity glides smoothly along from one thing to another, or as long as we permit our imagination to entertain fancies at pleasure, there is no call for reflection.  Difficulty or obstruction in the way of reaching a belief brings us, however, to a pause.  In the suspense of uncertainty, we metaphorically climb a tree; we try to find some standpoint from which we may survey additional facts and, getting a more commanding view of the situation, may decide how the facts stand in relation to one other.  (John Dewey, How We Think)

I'm specificially interested in this situation.  The possibly of reflection (of climbing a tree and surveying yourself by standing back from yourself) is precisely what's needed (for what? well...).  Only when we arrive at an interruption of our normal way of doing things--when things "don't work"--do we arrive at the possibly of reflection, of actually seeing how things stand in relation to one another.

I'm currently re-reading The Genealogy of Morals and writing up some reading notes on it, and whats so interesting is that in his preface, Nietzsche starts it out (section 3, I think) by admitting to a "scruple" that he's always had since he was 13.  This "scruple" is a questioning scruple: he cannot not question where morality came from.  And questioning is precisely an act that allows one to en-act a possibility of reflection.  This is because questioning normally takes place in situations where obstructions or difficulties arise.  A student asks a teacher to clarify something because there is a difficulty in understanding, an obstruction of communication.

Furthermore, there is this whole issue of "self-reflection," of self-questioning-self that is complex and wonderful and beautiful and strange.

Reading Aristotles Metaphysics: A. states that philosophy starts with wonder, with questioning.  Heidegger, in "The Essence of Truth" places questioning squarely at the heart of his philosophy: questioning is the act that literally founds human history.  Simone de Beauvoir says this in The Ethics of Ambiguity: "Man knows and thinks this tragic ambivalence [of death/meaningless/meaningfulness] which the animal and the plant merely undergo" (pg 7.).  This "knowing and thinking"--this space between the animal and human, does not take place between our human bodies/brains and their animal bodies/brains.  Rather, only with the possibly of reflection, of raising ourself up out of mere behavior, does something you could call "human meaning" enter into the conversation.  Simone's whole book, in fact, is devoted to that "stepping back," which for her means that we must stand back and choose our behavior--that's how we create human meaning.

Likewise, "to raise consciousness" or "consciousness raising" can be reduced to something like this.  The limits of our given world are pointed out in order that they may be questioned, seen as arbitrary or biased.  "Pointing out" as a notion may have something to do with "difficulty" or "obstruction": things don't normally get pointed out unless they're being resistant.  And furthermore even the phrasing is indicative: "raising."  We raise ourselves to reflection, to see new things.  "Climb a tree," like Dewey says.  ("consciousness raising" invites the political into this conversation).

Anyway, all the books I've been reading lately have been dancing around this "step back," this idea of "questioning" (Sartre/Simone call it "freedom"), Heidegger also calls it "freedom" but uses "questioning" as a specific act which both relates to action and language at the same time, and so he gets a lot of mileage out of it (in too many ways to handle right here).  [an addendum: Derrida wrote about the primary role of questioning in Heidegger?  Am I on the right path?  I smell blood.]

But anyway, lately it's everywhere, this concept, which probably has something to do with the fact that I'm reading lots of books by authors who all influenced or read each other, but also because there's hopefully something true in the description of what's happening, which I think there is!

The question is how to get people to actually "stand back" and think.

I think some of the bullshit pictures and "art"/doodlings on my blog should make someone think.  They make me stand back and think, that's why I posted them here.