I find it quite easy to be labled 'wierd'....it is merely another way of saying 'them'.
On Mar 1, 5:19 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On jobs. Whatever happened to apprenticeships? We call them interns > now, I suppose-but most of those are expected to complete or be in the > process of completing some form of higher(conformist) education. Not > all professions have interns and I would argue our onerous 'minimum > wage' is mostly to blame. I know I'm beating a dead horse here but it > seems to me every time Congress passes a law to regulate the economy > it just mucks up the process and makes it less efficient. > > Montessori school has a decent rep. of encouraging originality. Of > course, this is only for the very young children. Looking back in > history, many of the truly innovative and brilliant were practically > hermits. Less chance of being corrupted by humanity I suppose. Or > maybe they were just weird. > > “I would sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand > names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by > the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” -- William F. > Buckley, Jr., c. 1965 > > I'd say I agree but I'd pick Provo, Utah over Boston. I'm just sayin'. > > dj > > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Einstein recommended impudence, and we might draw some ideas from > > certain polarities between which he worked and lived. I sense this > > would miss the point in some ways by individual focus. If common > > sense were reliable we wouldn't need science and I wonder whether most > > people even get the messages about just how hard observation is and so > > on. Current forensic science, as accepted in our courts, is highly > > unreliable, yet so totally reliable in CSI. Something is afoot in > > rationalising terms (Freudian) in public "science" - and this involves > > massive ignorance pretending it knows what science is about. > > Standards in our universities are now dismally low and based on > > massively outdated ideas of what might be good for and useful to > > students. We lie to them about job prospects and more or less > > everything. Incompetence and rigidity have turned to corruption. The > > kids I used to teach genuinely believed degrees from my third rate > > institution would buy them that BMW, yet their fate was as shelf- > > stackers and call-centre fodder. Yet even in more prestigious places > > the syllabus is the same sad dross. I don't want to elevate > > creativity to something only a few academically capable can do - thus > > I follow a sense that creativity must lie elsewhere in large part. My > > guess is we could start with jobs that could have meaning and develop > > productive skills - this is an essentially communal task. > > > On 28 Feb, 20:17, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Academia's rigid walls seemed designed to supress dissent, and thus, > >> originality. I wonder if I were an academic if I would have the courage to > >> publish at all. Some of my heroes were crucified for their ideas, > >> especially if any flaw at all was discovered in their proof. Hawking's 10 > >> dimension version of M theory comes to mind...sending him into seclusion > >> for ten years! Yet when he returned, he had 11 dimension M theory in hand, > >> problem neatly solved. > > >> Conformity always has been the enforced ideal. > > >> [ Attached Message ]From:archytas <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > >> Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:37:51 -0800 > >> (PST)Local:Sat 28 Feb 2009 12:37Subject:[Mind's Eye] critical consensus > > >> Academics generally hold that your average plonker is about as likely > >> to come up with anything original as a Pope is likely to be non- > >> Catholic (Francis will no doubt tell us some were!) - this actuality > >> runs somewhat in contrast with learning organisation myths and so on > >> that stress that we are all originals and it's just school that beats > >> it out of us. Quite why a bunch of inveterate plagiarists should hold > >> such views on other people's originality, I'm not sure. I seem to > >> have wasted much time discussing originality amongst people utterly > >> devoid of it. I have a sense of what it might be and that we ascribe > >> it to individuals falsely, as whatever we are as individuals is > >> clearly linked to culture and groups. The literature on creativity is > >> so boring and upitself as not to be widely accessible, but some facts > >> are about in it. In teaching I haven't been able to do much more than > >> offer people the chance to get into projects and self-expression and > >> not drop on them for re-inventing wheels and so on - along with some > >> nurture-criticism. I suspect something deeper than schooling (they > >> school horses don't they?) is afoot in our not trusting to community > >> creativity or allowing its greater expression. I find the notion of > >> innovatory entrepreneurialism particularly suspect here, but there are > >> no doubt babies and bathwaters. > > >> I wonder if we have any anecdotes or historical notions of innovation > >> and its role in a more creative consensus on human living and what we > >> are about or want to be about? I'd start by saying the powers that be > >> are so frightened by innovation that they have shown and used > >> instruments of torture. Descartes quipped somewhere that they had > >> done dreadful things to Galileo - and he was an Italian - what might > >> they do to a Frenchman? Locally, I have found that a range of > >> votaries and bureaucrats quickly try to humiliate dissenting voices, > >> rather than get at the real evidence of a situation.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
