On 1 Mrz., 19:00, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm Scots Francis, so I have little interest in seeing other than a
> cricket score when Wales play England at the sport I was barred from
> because I took broken time payments that were often somewhat less than
> the "amateurs" took in "expenses".
My profoundest apologies, Neil. I'm afraid I'm not completely free of
the Irish tendency to regard everyone living on the largest island in
the North-East Atlantic Archipelago simply as "Brit." Thnk you for
reminding me that we are really, in fact, Celtic cousins and, as such,
should be allies against the perfidious Sassenach.
Sport remains a fascinating microcosm for politics and society, not
least because of its amazing capability for hypocrisy and because the
people in charge generally have nothing to do with any kind of
performance and productivity. Samaranch is proabably the greatest role
model in sport today.
Francis
> Science is close to making a bit more sense than Wittgenstein in terms
> of much that works in dialogue that is not easy to trace in the
> words. It may soon be possible to do some kind of "discourse analysis
> at speed" - or perhaps the turn will be the discovery some of us do
> have such a faculty. Deception is key in politics and the key in
> discourses of actual sciences is transparency.
> I've had the odd word with my grandson of late and he has loads of
> problems believing the biology of puberty or that I'm a biologist for
> that matter! He is working something out about lying at the moment.
> My guess is something goes wrong with this process because cheating
> and bullying really are the names of the language-games we play - and
> maybe (I think likely) these are built-in rather like 'rank' in social
> insects? My feeling is we are on the verge of a scientific unpacking
> of this stuff that will allow our debates to change and produce new
> 'leadership' forms - perhaps embodied in technology without us being
> run by Deep Thought.
> I'm afraid we are going to collapse to war before this. My guess is
> that what links foreign policy and bwanking is the false notion of
> cleverness put about. What actually happens is something we never
> know and the heroic stories are always told in retrospect. I wonder
> if we could detach idiot prejudices (Bacon's Idols) and fast-speed
> analysis - and find a way of making people argue under public scrutiny
> using new technologies, subjecting the votaries and worthies who have
> made 'negotiation' into a from of life to scientific scrutiny?
> I feel a lot of sympathy with what Don says above. The politicians
> are crap and make interventions that only work in terms of the
> publicity they generate and the lies they uphold. New Labour in the
> UK have been so bad they have only ensured that pretty committed
> democrats like me and Sue will never vote again. Brown and his
> cabinet sound more like Mugabe and his henchmen every day. They can
> admit no wrong.
>
> On 1 Mar, 13:19, 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.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
