I had been working on an interesting series of blogs which I’ve been posting here about “keys to dangerous knowledge” (see previous entries listed in sidebar) and I actually wrote another quite extensive blog that continues the discussion, but have not posted it here. The cosmos works in its wonderfully mysterious ways in service of its unpredictable and dynamic evolution, thus, things have changed midstream or, more accurately in this case, things have jumped forward. I just go with the quantum leaps when they occur.

My discussion about keys and dangerous knowledge will be included in a book I’m writing that greatly expands on my dissertation research. Thus, I will be including a chapter in the book—or perhaps several chapters—relating to the “Keys to Dangerous Knowledge” and I will zero in on what Joe may have meant when he so often alluded to ”dangerous knowledge” and “dangerous memory” in his work. While the idea of keys to knowledge may seem overused and archaic, there are reasons they keep coming up. The reasons lead right to the doorsteps of the most powerful people on earth—and they are not who most people think they are. In my “Psyche and Eros Code Blue Mission” story, I refer to the leader as the “Wizard of Symbols.” I had no idea who that wizard was when I was writing the story and engaging in the research (thus, I really was on a quest to find him) and if you read the stories, you’ll find that it has been quite a winding tale of research and analysis. That story, too, is set to continue and be greatly expanded in the Psyche and Eros of the Twenty-first Century books. The first one is scheduled to be out on February 14, 2014. I have been on a hiatus away from writing the continuing saga, but I am back now. And now I have an idea of who the Wizard of Symbols might be. . . but am I right? And is it “dangerous knowledge”? You will have to follow that story to find out.

During my research, I’ve come to realize that one important aspect—and perhaps the most important aspect--of that “dangerous knowledge” Joe was guiding us toward is “feminizing” the sciences.  That might very well be a dangerous proposition, but he has held the doors open, so to speak. I’ve written before about how he has held the doors open for us, but after doing more research, I understand that better now. While it sounds stereotypical, it must be remembered that most of us still live within cultures composed of primarily patriarchal societies (an extremely complex topic which Joe discusses so well in his Getting Beyond the Facts 2001 social studies book if you want a more textured discussion), so it’s an accurate description in most cases, and especially in relation to the sciences. We do need to transcend this.

The lack of equal participation of women in the sciences, technology, engineering, economics, etc., continues to be an issue that no one has found a remedy for, and it’s a major issue since the leaders in these disciplines literally create the reality we live in. We are passively sitting back and allowing a few left-brain-dominated FIDURODian men to construct our reality! And look what we have! Death, destruction, environmental degradation, wars, genocide, sick genome projects, and an endless list of destructive actions, which Joe has referred to as being influenced by thanatos, the death instinct. It is why Joe has asked researchers to inject a healthy dose of Love into their research and, specifically “Eros Love,” to give it a name (but, as I have conveyed in my other writings, there are many, many names we can assign this “spirit of love”). Thus, we need research that counters the manifestations of thanatos. And what better way to do that than by “feminizing” the sciences?

Before I continue, though, I want to emphasize that Eros Love is not solely sexual love—it is an overarching love, life force energy itself (that, again, goes by many names). Marcuse (1955/1966), in Eros and Civilization defined Eros as “the great unifying force that preserves all life,” acknowledging that its relationship to the death instinct, thanatos, which Joe has us off-setting, is “obscure.” Hence, to assume they are totally opposite may be a wrong assumption (p. 27). As Joe would probably contend, it's much more complex than that.  But combine the Divine Love of Eros in his complexity and Feminine Divine Love of Psyche in her complexity; well, maybe it’s a “match made in Heaven.” I can see how it would change things. I have experienced how it changes things.

I just watched a wonderful video today, "Native American Rant; Stop Using the Hopi Prophecy: If You Want to Know Ask a Hopi" produced by ekennye/Linda, and one of the messages that raised my understanding was, "It's just a belief until you experience it and then it's knowledge. The knowledge comes from participating" and she explained how they teach their children by engaging them in experiences of what they are learning. What a profound difference from the public education approach!

And isn't this what we are being called to do here, now that I understand in a more profound way the significance. Joe is asking us to experience that divine, powerful form of Love. Anything less than that, well, it's only speculation or "just a belief." And what do we end up doing? We argue over beliefs when we should be working toward experiencing the power of Love.

As Joe has stated, “Injecting radical love into this postformal mix provides us with new inroads into the magic of words. I want to use this magic to write something that transforms our view of the world and self in the same way that bees transform pollen into honey”  (Reading, Writing, and Thinking, 2006, pp. 13-14­). I always loved this quote about bees transforming pollen into honey and sensed there was something especially divine about it. I just recently have learned what it represents. Bees are a sacred totem related to the goddesses and priestesses returning. Of course, the return of the goddesses and priestesses also means the return of "radical love." Bees are also very mystical with magical qualities and they are associated with higher consciousness. This would be a fascinating topic to study in greater depth.

At any rate, that is my focus: To inject “Eros Love” into my work as I work toward “feminizing” science. Joe left us the conceptualization of a “critical science of complexity” and his advanced form of research bricolage, which I have demonstrated with my dissertation; with these, it's possible to move forward, to the next level. In his conceptualization he has somewhat “hidden” the fact that it REQUIRES RADICAL feminizing of the sciences. It’s included in the “steps” posted right on the Home Page of this website, subtle, but powerful. Even I did not realize the full power of what he was asking us to do until fairly recently. It is the epitome of the “Golden Chalice” but I’ll save that discussion for another day. It may just be one of the most dangerous things about the process he developed but you have to engage in the process to realize its power; as long as we are overly influenced by outside FIDURODian reality, chances are we will miss our “Golden Opportunity.”

However, when we begin that engagement in the form of research that compels actions is when the reactions will emerge from the hidden depths. I have seen it many times and it’s a kind of magic. It’s a form of magic we might not wish to see at times because it can be challenging, but it’s powerful in showing us the path toward love and freedom as are those emergences of blissful magic moments.

Thus, Joe’s theory (which incorporates quantum sciences), like Amit Goswami’s quantum theory, has a “do-be-do-be-do” action component that is amazingly productive. (I loved the way Goswami expressed that in his movie, "The Quantum Activist"). During the “Be” dance step is when you are waiting to see what emerges from the implicate (hidden) dimensions of reality before taking your next “Do” step. Maybe that’s why Joe liked to call his form of science and research “dancing.” And I have to admit, it is a lot of fun! And powerful! (And it keeps the Wizards totally off-guard, which can sometimes be very funny).

But it’s up to us—and I do hope many more women will take this opportunity to move the project forward. Men are not going to do it! At least not the men who are running the show. In fact, it’s men who continue to serve as my biggest obstacle in this work, even those who put themselves out there as being “progressive.” And most of those men simply do not know how to dance! I have found that when I reach out to men who have complementary interests, they just run the other way. We need more men like Joe was—totally egalitarian who do not feel threatened by working hand-in-hand with women, and who love dancing. That’s not to say Joe was perfect; one of my favorite email exchanges with him was when he told me he was “not being macho” in response to something I wrote to him, and I wrote back and told him he was too being macho! But he knew the message: I loved him just as he was and as he was “evolving.”

We need more men who feel so secure in themselves that they can still honor women in the traditional sense, by holding the door open for them and letting them go first. There are some out there, of course, but not very many. It is time for the “goddesses” to stand up and take their places. And of course, I also call for the men out there to become involved with this as well. As I have said elsewhere, when the Divine Feminine rises up, Lo and Behold—the Divine Masculine can as well and oh, is that divine male glorious!…in unison, together, each helping the other we can create a new and better world. We all need to learn and practice those DO-BE dance steps together.

Thus, I will be using my dissertation as a launching point, or as Kathleen Berry frames it, a Point of Entry Text (POET) and greatly expand on it, taking it to the next level. The first version might be considered a Primer that describes a map and demonstrates the application of Joe’s critical bricolage and epistemology, so I believe it’s a very valuable piece of work. It can help scholars move to higher levels of bricolage research with their own work.

In the dissertation, as previously discussed, I introduce Joe’s Critical Science of Complexity in Chapter Five, and there are further discussions available here. I will be using the bricolage process as Joe has delineated as I continue my research to explore some ideas of how we might feminize science. Of course, one of the first tasks is to begin to define exactly what I mean by feminizing science. It does not exclude men, by any means, as my previous discussion has alluded to. In fact, I’ll be including work of three great men: Joe, of course, and Einstein, and also the work of Amit Goswami, and his call for us to become “Quantum Activists” as well as many more scientists. To pull in the women’s side of the historical track of science, I’ll need to do a lot of research. Much of that knowledge is hidden and definitely not taught in school. It needs to be brought out into the open. I am also doing some research from other countries in other languages. Restricting research to English is a handicap with all of the censorship and control of publishing in the United States.

In addition, it seems that my “Greatly Expanded Version” of my dissertation will have multimedia, including music and arts components, so it may be that I will need to make it an eBook, instead of traditionally printed. Joe is the one who mastered achieving a “multimedia” Great Work in words alone (he was a word magician). One thing I discovered when I was writing my dissertation for the academy is that, due to the academic constraints, it did not adequately represent the process I had engaged in, which was extremely multidimensional, using multimedia and multiple disciplines. Interestingly, a new article just published by Alexandra Cutcher (2013) highlights some of the issues when employing and presenting arts-based research and provides ideas for working around them. (I've posted a link to her article under Critical Literacy). In the bricolage it becomes a great challenge as well, since many different components go into the construction of the ”final” bricolage, so I hope that this next work I’m producing will provide some ideas to help open up possibilities for researchers. If successful, it should take my own understanding of bricolage research and learning to higher levels and hopefully will do the same for other bricoleurs who are interested in my work.

Anyone interested in “feminizing” science or not (I will include both pros and cons) or if you have written on this topic, please let me know! Please understand that when I refer to “feminizing” sciences, I will be following Joe’s guidance, which means we never throw the babies out with the bathwater. I will not throw out the good things about science and I will be looking in many directions, especially toward indigenous sciences and nontraditional forms of sciences that tend to be discredited—as well as mainstream science. I don’t expect to get far with this next venture because, again, my project is to accomplish many things including expanding on some of the topics relating to bricolage that I had touched on in the dissertation. My plan is to just explore and see where that leads me. Thus, this will be a very small baby step which, when finished, I will be able to again launch toward a more rigorous exploration of some aspect of what I uncover. I’m excited about this project and the prospect of learning more. This is just one of the doors Joe has held open for women but, in reality, it is a door that is open to--and can greatly benefit--us all.

NEW ITEMS: I continue to add new items to this site as time allows. I have added some more love quotes from several of Joe’s works on the “Raising the Bar for Radical Love” page of this website. EnJOY!  

I am just checking in today to share a video I watched which sums up how our consciousnesses have been molded and exemplifies why the type of learning and research Joe has theorized is so important.

The video covers the history of consciousness construction, education, and psychology. There are several books presented in the video that provide more information for those who are interested. The video only presents the tip of the iceberg but the ramifications are actually disturbing in many ways. 

One problem with breaking free is that so many people have been indoctrinated with wanting the "right" answers. I remember even when I was in undergraduate college, the right answer was whatever the professor said was the right answer, even if it was wrong. Students often take more time to get to know their professors' ideologies than to learn. How is it learning if we are basically only learning what one professor thinks is important? Fortunately, there are always exceptions to professors who teach in that manner, but still, we all teach our ideologies unless we allow students more freedom to follow their interests and what's relevant to them.

We are so ingrained to blindly following policies, procedures, rules, taking and passing tests, doing our jobs, etc. Most of us, and most of our students if we are teachers, only want to know what is needed to pass the test (or do the job, etc.). This is readily observed in the workplace: people simply follow along with the rules no matter how unproductive, inane, and divisive they are. And what seems so strange to me is that they don't want to change things! I invariably get verbally attacked if I merely suggest discussing ideas for improving things for everyone. Somehow, in very twisted ways, the majority feel secure with the irrationality of it all.  And so, they willingly work as slaves for pennies while lining the CEOs' pockets with ever greater outrageous sums. I keep hoping things will change, but so far the "rational irrationality" disease just seems more prevalent than ever -- everywhere!

It is critical to somehow get past this stumbling block. There are other blocks, but first we have to fully realize the importance of seeking knowledge in the ways Joe has presented to us. Maybe if more people can come to realize WHY it is important to begin to try some of his recommendations, they will actually engage in some of the processes and come to realize the great benefits from putting out the extra effort. Thus, I hope teachers will explore these concepts Joe has provided us for themselves and with their students. As well, students can apply these ideas in their own research and expand their learning beyond the curriculum.

Hermeneutics, seeking multiple perspectives, studying etymology and linguistics, polysemy, critical complex epistemology, and semiotics are all critical activities for freeing our minds from the mind prisons we have been forced into against our will. While we may think these activities will crowd our brains even more than all of the "useless data" (as Joe puts it), they really do not. Engaging in these activities frees us, opens up our creativity, helps us see connections and patterns, and allows us to be who we really are as innovative, creating, contributing individuals again. We learn to make our own choices again. We do not give up the social aspects of knowledge production, however, because these processes, in the way Joe has carefully developed and presented them, actually bring people back in balance again, both individually and socially.

At any rate, I find it very helpful to get this broad perspective on the history of education the video presents for a greater understanding as to the importance for the kinds of changes in teaching and learning that Joe has advocated. And for another in depth and broader look at this, be sure to read his book, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction and do your own research into aspects that are of interest to you and important for your work. I have found the more I understand why this type of research and activism is so important, the more impassioned I am to engage in it.

State of Mind the Psychology of Control [Video]

Firelands - "The Best of Celtic Music"

I was reading through Daniel Chandler’s online version of his textbook, “Semiotics for Beginners,” and came to realize that as wonderful as the text is and as great as it is for beginners, it truly is only the beginning. If semiotics is new for you it’s a great place to begin, but keep in mind that it is primarily being applied in our FIDURODian world.  I have not read the entire book by any means, and it may very well allude to unseen dimensions. Semiotics is new to me, too, (so semioticians out there: give me a break!). I still find the concepts very powerful.

We need to open up more to these ideas. More people are experiencing and seeing these “unseen” dimensions. Thus, we need to greatly expand our understandings of semiotics and apply the concepts to Joe’s “fourth dimension research.” This is where we confront complexity to a maximum degree because we then begin to perceive the multidimensional implicate order of reality and begin to comprehend how expansive it might be. Quickly, we come to an even greater realization as to why we need Joe’s conceptualization of critical complex hermeneutics for discernment. While we seek multiple interpretations and do not want to limit ourselves, we also don’t want to become lost in the potential chaos or be taken down dark, dead-end alleys. We remember then, that while infinite possibilities exist, if we are seeking to construct knowledge from a strong philosophical base and a foundation of love, this leaves many of those infinite possibilities by the wayside. Joe has given us flexible guidelines with his established criteria, as I’ve mentioned previously, and as we become more comfortable with this approach, we are more confident in our abilities to make choices that are beneficial. This greatly narrows down our task of the bringing together of implicate (typically “unseen” orders of reality in other dimensions, but which more of us are beginning to perceive) and explicate (material, “normal” one-dimensional orders of reality as limited by our five senses and understanding of 3d earth reality) together to create something new. The knowledge reconstruction job ahead is gargantuan, however, which you will quickly come to realize if you engage in these processes.

I continue to be drawn to the idea of “keys for knowledge.” An article that crossed my workspace yesterday, titled “Junk DNA: Our Interdimensional Doorway to Transformation,” (Murphy 2012-2013) holds clues to the doorways (and the need for “keys”). It’s interesting that so many cross-cultural interpretations point to the numbers (keys?) 7 and then 11 and 12, 13, and beyond (in my dissertation I discuss this symbolism more extensively). What is the relevance? I continue to maintain that there are infinite keys (infinite doorways, perspectives, dimensions, levels of consciousness, etc.), but at the same time, it’s useful to begin somewhere, and helpful to order things (remembering none of this is sequential and it all overlaps and intertwines). And so many different traditions, whether they speak in terms of keys to knowledge, chakras and energy systems, acupuncture and energy points, the Quest for the Golden Chalice, the Ojibwe’s “Seventh Fire” or a multitude of other explanations, interpretations, prophecies, or what-have-you, they point to the same direction: understanding creation; that is, as Joe has presented it – understanding how we socially construct our world so that we can do a much better job, creating a world that is one of love, justice, peace, and equality, and also one that, of course, cherishes earth and takes care of our resources, rather than competing with each other to see who can get the most.

Joe mentions DNA in Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. There is something very significant that’s been hidden from us in this “junk DNA” and it will be interesting to follow the research to greater understanding. I encourage those who are interested to read the article as well as other articles relating to DNA research. Again, the idea is to use bricolage to get as many perspectives as possible for greater understanding. As many people realize, too often “normal” scientists will throw something aside simply because they don’t understand it, as they have by calling so much of the DNA complex “junk.” This is all very complicated and the current and future research in this area should be very interesting. I barely touched on the concept in my dissertation, stating:

Science has been constructed to prevent us from learning truth about our extraterrestrial heritage and true potential, according to exo-scientists Jiang and Li (2007). Pleiadians have shared some of the same trials as earthlings and throughout the ages have tried to share their experiences so that we don’t experience the same setbacks that could lead to the destruction of the planet. “But at present, not enough people on Earth are listening” attest Jiang and Li. According to Michael Salla, a leading exo-scientist, there are more than 20 types of extraterrestrial genes locked up in the DNA of humans, knowledge which reportedly has been shared through transmissions from Pleiadians. Within this DNA “lies psycho-kinetic abilities associated with the genetic memories of ancient extraterrestrial races” (Jiang & Li, 2007, para. 6) and genes also serve as “devices for extracting information from the environment” (Ridley, 2003, p. 148). This provides a scientific explanation for Kincheloe’s fourth dimension research. It may explain why my memories and psychic abilities have “unlocked” as I have engaged in this research. According to Ridley, genes must be activated (e.g., create a protein) during the learning process and they are at the mercy of us—our behavior. Thus, our act of remembering switches genes on; we do not simply inherit memory (pp. 180–181). It seems Kincheloe’s words and research process could be the magic he had vowed he wanted to create. Words, numbers, and symbols can trigger memory which in turn activates genes for various psychic abilities.

[Excerpt from "Did Joe Lyons Kincheloe Discover the Golden Chalice for Knowledge Production? The Application of Critical Complex Epistemology and the Multidimensional Critical Complex Bricolage" (Paradis, 2013); pp. 581-582].

http://www.joekincheloe.us/paradis_2013_did_joe_lyons_kincheloe_discover_the_golden_chalice.html

Where does all of this lead? How did I get from discussing “keys to knowledge” to discussing DNA? For one thing, the last blog I wrote highlighted “the word” as an important key to knowledge. In the article about “Junk DNA” language is also highlighted. Here is an excerpt:

In the 1990s, a team of Russian linguists led by Dr Peter Gariaev discovered that the genetic code in “junk” DNA follows uniform grammar and usage rules virtually identical to those of human language. It turns out that the “junk” was laden with the intimations of intelligence, purpose and meaning (a perspective forbidden by fundamentalist Darwinism). This ground-breaking research followed Jeff Delrow’s discovery in 1990 that the four nucleotides (A, T, G and C) of DNA inherently form fractal structures closely related to human speech patterns. Within non-coding DNA segments, scientists have found large numbers of “endlessly repeated sequences with no apparent meaning, and even palindromes, which are words or sentences which can be read in either direction.”

Thus, human language seems to have emerged from the grammatical and syntactical structures within our very own DNA—the massive “junk” portion, no less!—hence why there is no substance to the notion that there was some kind of linear progression from the primitive form of pre-linguistic communication in the animal kingdom to human language. It was a quantum leap right out of the aether/vacuum/implicate order.

Thus, this article, which appeared serendipitously (I did not research for it) supports Joe’s theory in relation to the extreme importance of language (and the act of critical discourse in the bricolage) and the idea that “the word” is one of the important keys for knowledge production. Language is complex, however, and cannot be simply related to a single chakra, for example, such as the throat chakra. The excerpt also highlights language as emanating from the implicate order of reality. This, in turn, supports Joe’s notion that what we create are representations of the contents of our consciousness and that by studying things like music, artwork, literary creations, etc., we can learn indirectly about consciousness (as well as implicate orders of reality).

The next thing that happened in relation to this research: This morning, I just happened to open up Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction right after my morning meeting in which I had asked for assistance with this extremely complicated research about keys and was simply told not to worry and that I would be guided. Sometimes this process takes a lot of “faith” and reassurance and I receive an abundance of reassurance.

The pages I opened up to are 216-217 and this is where Joe very deeply explains how knowledge is socially constructed. It’s really a fascinating discussion that is so open for interpretation. I was, in particular, drawn to the word, “prestidigitation” and how he used it to emphasize the “magical” quality words can have in our construction of reality. He states, “Critical magicians study the specifics of these dynamics and use them to perform epistemological and ontological prestidigitation” (p. 216) [Emphasis added]. [His childhood dream of creating magic is surfacing here, again]. Of course, this sentence is open for interpretation beyond a magician who uses a “sleight of hand.” Upon looking up the meaning of the word, it is expansive in its meanings. Studying the list of synonyms can take one on an endless epistemological journey. Again, Joe adeptly uses the magic of words to open up our world, open up our possibilities, rather than close them down as FIDUROD has so many of us doing. The message on these pages when taken in context and contemplated is profound. Here he is showing us the power of key #2, “the word.” I encourage anyone who’s interested in understanding the nature of the social construction of knowledge to read these pages. It is again, a very powerful excerpt from his work, but because it’s long, I cannot quote it here.

I also found it interesting how his use of the word “prestidigitation” connects back to his definition of bricolage in which he had incorporated the “chicanery” of Hermes. I explored the definition of chicanery in my analysis of his definitions of bricolage which many people have ignored, in my dissertation. Again, it’s a matter of needing to open up one’s mind to multiple and expanded meanings, rather than taking a simple definition as often provided by the sanctioned dictionary or, in the case of bricolage, the scholars who have passed their FIDURODian initiation exams (e.g., their PhDs). Exploring words etymologically and exploring their synonyms opens up meaning. We break free from the chains that bind us and we have greater power to socially construct knowledge versus having our knowledge constructed for us for the purposes of simplifying (dumbing down) so that we can be herded around. So many of us are programmed through our educational process to want simple answers and the “right” definition (to pass a test, get the diploma, get the job, etc.). But what returns our power to us is quite the opposite.

As Joe explains, “Knowledge workers in such a critical complex epistemological context are not mere functionaries of the dominant power bloc, but are creators of the universe. If educators understood the epistemological and ontological importance of the knowledge production process, I believe they would approach it in a different pedagogical framework. Thus, amazingly, the linguistic dynamic cannot be separated from the epistemological and ontological dimensions. As previously argued, in a critical complex epistemology if we can think it and articulate it we can bring it into existence” (pp. 216-217). [emphasis added].

Again, in the excerpt on these two pages, he reminds us of the importance of indigenous knowledges, contending that “Contemporary epistemology is just now catching up to indigenous understandings of language, some of which were developed millennia ago” (p. 216). And lest people think this is oversimplified (it’s difficult to capture his complex ideas in a summary), he clarifies: “In this analysis of the social construction of knowledge it is important to note that modes of knowledge production and the social contexts that shape them co-evolve. There is no one-way flow of causation, e.g., language does not simply construct reality, for reality is always constructing language. In this context a pre-formed world does not merely create language; language and the world co-construct one another. Thus, the linguistic magic we are playing with here is a co-constructed phenomenon. Historically, we can explore this dynamic in the process learning more about how we became what we are and, of course, what we might become” (p. 217). This observation can be interpreted from a number of perspectives, once again. We cannot, however, create reality in a bubble alone.

Thus, again, we have support for the importance of “the word” as a key to knowledge and knowledge production which I had highlighted in my last blog, Signs, Symbols, and Semiotics: Appreciate the Little Things PLUS the Keys to Dangerous Knowledge, Keys #1 and #2. In summary, Key #1 involves the understanding of the power dynamics involved in knowledge construction (understanding the “rules of the game”), and Key #2, “the word,” is the key to creation. These keys (as are all keys) are, of course, interrelated in complex ways. This supports the importance of literacy skills and the value of learning multiple languages, and, importantly, the processes of the multidimensional critical complex bricolage. It highlights the importance of gaining multiple perspectives of what we are researching and the act of critical thought. And, amazingly, scientists are finding corollary evidence as to how language is encoded in our very DNA, as noted in the DNA article. What is the implication for consciousness as a social construction? Joe discusses that in the next section of his book, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction, which leads directly to Key #3 on page 230.

We are bordering ever closer, here, on that “dangerous knowledge” that Joe references so often in his work. And, as he puts it, it is not an easy task. “Critical pedagogues [critical teachers and researchers] retreat from their schools to mend the wounds and psychological scars inflicted by the defenders of traditional epistemologies and the ideological status quo. Teaching and researching from a critical complex epistemological perspective is not for the faint of heart. The men and woman who engage in this activism, this pedagogy must be tough and, as mentioned earlier, ready to take some hits” (p. 215).

It’s interesting that he framed this as “the men and woman.” Multiple men, one woman are engaging in this. This was not a typo. Am I really the only woman who engages in critical complex pedagogy and multidimensional critical complex bricolage? Only on this planet, perhaps.

The mission is to change that.