What does it mean to "deconstruct" and how is it done?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I'm asking this question because it has been my experience as a college sociology teacher that students lack the critical thinking skills to deconstruct information so they can analyze it objectively. They usually go directly to reaction and opinion, and then emote. What does deconstruction mean to you?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
To take apart.

If different small events culminate to construct a large event, then to deconstruct the large event would be to break it down into its smaller parts. Kind of like a Lego structure.

As for disinformation, to deconstruct it is to take it apart and analyze the tidbits.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by alumnathe
I'm asking this question because it has been my experience as a college sociology teacher that students lack the critical thinking skills to deconstruct information so they can analyze it objectively. They usually go directly to reaction and opinion, and then emote. What does deconstruction mean to you?


Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand." Deconstruction is the process of falling walls, only to build them up again. We must fail to succeed. Hearing is forgetting. Seeing is learning. Doing is understanding. Bias is a wall. Break it down and see clearly.

Read James 1:22-27. Tell me if you recognize the progression from hearing, seeing and doing. What does James say is perfect religion with regards to breaking down the walls of our ultimate bias from what is unseen (Namely God)? He compares it to an image in a mirror. In this case, the mirror is the Word of God. We hear, we see, but if we do not do, we can never understand. You nail it when you say bias. Bias must be removed.

Read the book Verbal Judo. "Speak for the other person in the manner in which they should be speaking for themselves. George Thompson then states the key to doing this. Remove bias, condescension and anger.

Deconstruction is doing. Effort and application of knowledge is useless apart from wisdom. Deconstruction is the process of removing what does not belong in favor of what does. Experience is the only way to find success in the process.

Your sociology teacher is recognizing the symptom, but not the root of the problem. Objectivity is simply applying natural law to a problem and testing to see if law solves the problem. Confucius merely stated a natural law in the form of a proverb. This is what all proverbs are. They tell you how to apply natural law to solve a problem. In the case of James 1, he was merely saying what Confucius said and noting the source of the law as God.

All problems are caused by breaking law and being out of context with truth of universal absolutes. Objectivity must rest on observed laws. For example, if you smoke, you get cancer. This is because a reward was taken that caused a debt. Suffering is always the result of taking a reward that is not earned. Reverse this. If you set aside the smokes and suffer the work of exercise, health improves. Why? You suffered for the reward. It was earned.

As Solomon would say, "You reap what you sow." Proverbs are natural laws. Laws are governed. Deconstruction is separating what does not follow law.

Simply put, it's liberty by justice. Freeing truth trapped in error.

James 1:19-21

Listening and Doing

19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

edit on 27-7-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I have nothing much of quality to add to this thread, but I do however look forward to it's life.

I do want to add this piece however, I suspect anything that goes into the hoax bin on this site. Whom is the foremost authority that just arbitrarily stamps a thread as a hoax? He or She has too much power. There are no experts, only first-hand witnesses and commentators. And there are no lack of commentators.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
First I want to say that I am just now getting reacquainted with the hoax disappointment aspect of OTS, after being an occasional participating member for, I think, at least 7 years now. I understand how awful it feels to believe in something and have hope, and then April Fools! It's just mean, and haters are gonna hate, so nothing worth deconstructing there.

I must say how excited I feel that I got responses from people who are actually describing deconstruction! Now I am the hopeful one, because I will take to my class what you describe here. Really, there's no better manual than how people are putting their thoughts together in real time.

I like the deconstruction that weaves in faith, because many of my students hold back thinking they can't offer a "scholarly" opinion because they are led by faith. What I try to do there is remind everyone that we are ALL led by faith of some kind. We all believe in something. Our own biases are part of a deconstruction, not something to ignore.

I think that deconstructing claims of anomalies is important, but must also account for uncertainty. I think that is the most difficult variable to work with in forming opinions based on deconstruction. We want to be sure about everything. In reality, there's not much we are sure of.

Those are my thoughts on these first few posts and I just want to thank you for responding and I will share your thoughts with my students. Keep telling me how you do it!
edit on 27-7-2012 by alumnathe because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
1

log in

join