Bill, > Your "the primary function of global interconnectivity has to be > auto-didactics, 'home-schooling' in the widest sense" is our hope for > the future. How do we get there? My thinking is a bit circuitous, Im afraid, for anything like a book, but in looking at what is being done in the name of global interconnectivity, the total absence of awareness of its educative function is remarkable. 'How do we get there?' thus requires that we also confront the question, How did we get *here? Lets work from the evidence: What stands in place of this awareness is the assumption that access to 'educational materials' is enough to serve the purpose; that institutionalized channels of education are not only all we need, but are working well; that distance education and virtual classrooms will reveal new "learning capacities"; that if there is a problem, its in cost/benefit ratios, in 'incentives' for students not to drop out, and so on. The Net can therefore go on in its usual ways -- endless 'academic' (read, irrelevant) discussions on one hand, and the upstart commercial (relevant by definition!) enterprises on the other -- while 'issues' of porn and privacy and proprietary trademark occupy a sort of tendentious middle ground between RL and VR. Technology is merely where value-free science meets the open air; never a social factor in itself; value, indeed, is a synonym for the dollar, not a full spectrum of ideas. To my mind, this state of mind is the strongest evidence that western education really is in a sad state: discussion means talking without listening (and worse: one intelligent soul told me he doesnt respond to my posts because he doesnt *agree*!); commerce means consumerism: buying and selling without hope or offer of (admittedly old-fashioned) *custom. Even the 'techie' IFWP list (where yesterday's post was initially sent) accepts that 'it's too late' to keep ICANN from becoming a de-facto Internet government; that talking about such things is a waste of time. In short, what one *does is so disconnected from thinking, let alone auto-didactics, that the topic of *how one learns* falls through the crack. Education? Talk to a Teacher. Self-governance? Talk to a political scientist. But a parenting technique to raise children who can see, think and act for themselves, and avoiding dependency on (not to say, addiction to) authority? Hey, good luck! - because that implies *I* have a duty to see, think and act for myself, and its too late for that. Well, I keep relapsing into cynicism -- sorry. Isnt 'how to get there' to keep talking -- and listening! -- with *intent? If one expects to be persuaded, and expects that ones responses can be met persuasively, how can one take pablum for an answer? *You*, as the perceptive, responsible, *thoughtful interlocutor, are the educator of the disempowered speaker (as well as countless voiceless lurkers, whose only chance of discovering the therepeutic benefits of participating is by observing honest dialogue). Give keeping a conversation going (for isnt that the essence of all 'educational' endeavour?) precedence over the 'details' of what is being discussed -- not because you get an answer or even because your protagonist may finally understand that there really is a question, but for the sake of the (possibly neither seen nor heard) 'children.' If we dont even pass along something to think about (or with!), what on earth are we here for? The future of digital civilization, at least, depends on collective auto- didactics, but (God forbid!) dont take my word for it! for the next generation, kerry ========== Here's a nice bit from a page of laments about the state of British ed: http://www.on-the-net.com/interskills/minis/educ.htm THE FAMILY WILL LEAD EDUCATION by Keith Hudson Education does not lead the way and is seldom at the cutting edge of social change. It is retrospective, even conservative, since it teaches the young what others have experienced and discovered about the world. The future of education will be shaped not by educators, but by changes in demography, technology and the family. Its ends--to prepare students to live and work in their society--are likely to remain stable, but its means are likely to change dramatically. The simple view of governments and universities that they themselves can improve education by the expansion of present methods and more credentialism is futile and counter-productive. Tinkering with schools and colleges is not the answer. Double the number of graduates without doubling the number of graduate-level jobs and you promote graduate unemployment and debase academic qualifications. The primary impulse for educational success is the family--far more than the school, let alone the university, or government policies. At the present time, parents are confused but, sooner or later, they will get their bearings again, and we shall see educational methods and content that will be far more relevant to the world of tomorrow. Education is much too important to leave to the educatorss because the latter are primarily interested in protecting their own careers, while the parents are interested in their childrens'. Parents know what is happening in the real world long before the educational institutions. From Job Society Newsletter by Keith Hudson, March 1995 ===
