We may have sunk too far for education to be much of an answer because of its own prejudices.
On 29 Oct, 22:41, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I remember, the you’re/your mistake is a typical Craig > confusion, not Ian’s. That’s why he is pissed whereas Craig is the one > who has always been too old. And Vam joins the bandwagon. But then who > got these Minds Ayers rolling in the first place? > > On 29 Okt., 14:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes Slip - the logic is 'strange' - a key element in a lot of > > scientific thinking. Ian's wit is sharp here and there is much to > > agree with. Does, for instance, this 'making everyone winners > > sportsday' translate to the current fetish for accrediting everything > > (from NVQs in stair sweeping) and the passing everyone habits in > > schools and universities and the dilution of what school certificates > > and degrees mean? Pat is talking a sophisticated educational language > > that one can find in a recent Cambridge-led review - ideas that very > > much seem to work in Greater Scandinavia and is linked as you point at > > to notions education needs to be linked to a fairer society. The > > pedantry over 'your' and 'you're' may also be a key problem - is this > > attention to detail (sometimes good) or the kind of chronic limiting > > of creativity 'red pen' often brings? Here, one would hope it's just > > an 'in joke' that can damage neither Ian nor I, but it's also > > representative of a miserable educational culture that is marking > > grammatic literacy ahead of ideas. I've had really bright dyselxic > > students reduced to tears and confidence collapse by much worse and > > the arguments about this establishment bias go back to Labov how > > sought to show one could find more intelligence in street-talk on real > > problems than amongst Ivy League training mediocrity. Ian's tale was > > short and cutting (to a chase). I can't remember how many people have > > assumed I must be an idiot, sexist, racist and so on because I played > > so much sport and was so competitive. I'd say the experience helped > > make me the opposite. Key in Wittgenstein's form of deconstruction is > > an ability to see many apparently opposing arguments are not what they > > seem, that they can be based in similarities (the key notion in the > > Ludwig and Snell programmes in the hsitory of science). Chris is > > rig > > ht too, that the 'chavs' can easily take advantge inn our society - > > > > > we could go a lot further and spot this in forms of 'intellectual > > chavism' and varieties of it inthe 'hoolier than thou' claiming moral > > certainty, or even those apparently denying such certainty whilst > > living very comfortably as commentators of the left. > > > Pat suggests a solution of new competitions with worthy ends. Quite > > right - almost nothing left to say and much to do. > > > Before turning a few words in here I was 'supervising' my grandson and > > some of his mates - it's half-term (pure joy!) - two black lads and > > 'half-cast' (where do we get these terms?) and a lot of east-European > > genes, now off in search of Jamil after some Grand Theft Auto. Not a > > trace of racism amongst them and families who make a few extra chips > > and such in hospitality - yet around us the old problems are rearing > > their ugly heads again - they have never gone away. > > > On the IQ stuff there is key scientific evidence - that we differ very > > little genetically - that should be making us see the problem clearly > > as indicating unfairness and a proneness to see certainties (such as > > races lacking intelligence) where there is nothing other than cultural > > elitism and self-deception, a repeated failure to see how different > > and radical a fair society would be. Our kids sort of manage it - > > what are we doing that destroys this? Sport is a good exemplar of how > > much nonsense is talked on superiority, when looked at historically. > > Classics are the success of ethnic minorities once colour-bars are > > destroyed and 'showtime' allowed. How many of our 'so valuable we'll > > die without paying them small fortunes bwankers' would survive if we > > introduced open examinatons insttead of the current old boy network? > > Sadly, only the colour and class origins of the King Mice would change > > as it has in the NFL and Premier League, if we don't change the > > broader structures. > > > The arguments are strange and complicated - simplexity might emerge if > > we worked harder. What we try todo needs aan understanding of > > tolerance and a dropping of much almost iconographic levels of > > remembered pain, whilst establishing a true history from which we can > > work. Much of this history will be a history of failures and > > unintended consequences. The question is partly about recognising > > links between personal-individual virtue and social success. We have > > been making do with greed and myth, including many about clarity and > > certainty, many born in cultures equally unsuited to the current > > crisis. I was going to send Ian some nappies as a gesture of help > > with his problem, but obviously I should retain these for personal use > > following Dr. Vam's diagnosis. > > > It's sad to see cricket venues I once hoped to be god ennough to grace > > in Pakistan being blown to bits. Sadder still is the feeble Olympian > > movement that can organise obsessive drug-cheats into a festival (has > > there been a decent incident at such since the Black Power glove?) > > from which we never learn we could organise projects that would bring > > peace, security and something to want to do? > > > On 29 Oct, 12:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 28 Oct, 18:05, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good thoughts all, Pat, but as noted, idealistic and utopian. Here's > > > > where > > > > it breaks down: > > > > > 1. The intelligent and socially rsponsibble agree that disarmament and > > > > non-competitive cooperation is the ideal, and take steps to make this a > > > > reality. > > > > > 2. The brutes and anti-socials (chavs, if you will), recognize this > > > > accurately as a weakness, and come take all the posessioons, liberties, > > > > and > > > > virginities of the rest of the group. > > > > > Darwin accurately noted the brutality of nature,and it's onnly idealism > > > > and > > > > rank utopianism that allows us to believe that it could be anything > > > > else. > > > > Those who are raised upwithout thhe ability to recognize this, and > > > > compete > > > > accordingly, fail in the inevitable competitions which WILL occur. I'll > > > > buy > > > > your dream when one day goes by on this planet that a woman is not > > > > raped. > > > > I completely agree that the world will always afford us > > > competitions but that they can be won by us all if we combine our > > > efforts. I have no problem with ideals or idealism, outside the fact > > > that they aren't striven towards. Possessions are a misnomer, liberty > > > fades in the face of a space-time continuum and viginity MUST fail if > > > we are all to survive to the next generation. The brutes, as you call > > > them, hould thhen, as an act of compassion by the rest of us, be > > > removed. No doubt that's why we have no more Neanderthals--perhaps > > > the Cro-Magnon were more evolved spiritually and found that they HAD > > > to remove the brutes in order to survive t OUU stagee. > > > If we want competitions in schools, rather than meaningless egg-n- > > > spoon races, why not have a competition to reforest an area and reward > > > the individual/class/school the excels in planting the most trees? At > > > least there's a tangible and beneficial result from the competition, > > > rather than a meaningless 'sport'. > > > I see no benefits to having what amounts to 'circuses' when there > > > are people (homeless and starving) who require bread. At least Rome > > > gave 'bread and circuses'; we only give circuses. How sad is THAT? > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Oct, 14:01, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2009/10/28 Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Of course we have schools all wrong. We encourage children to > > > > > > > compete against one another--to score better on tests than their > > > > > > > peers, to excel at sports over their their peers and teach them > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the only way THEY will do well is if they can continue to beat > > > > > > > everyone else 'out there' in the real world. > > > > > > > Totally wrong, Pat. This is exactly what we don't do any more in > > > > > > schools. > > > > > My > > > > > > nephew's recent sports day was pathetic. No prizes for the winners > > > > > (because > > > > > > "everyone was a winner")! What a fucking celebration of mediocrity. > > > > > > Well, you can prove that by, first, adopting my system for a > > > > > generation (maybe 2) and seeing if it works better or not. Anything > > > > > else is just hot air. 'Sport' doesn't matter as much as getting along > > > > > with one another. And, if you think it does, then, I'm afraid, we'll > > > > > have to agree to disagree. Nothing lost in that. But nothing > > > > > gained. > > > > > > > Unsurprisingly, the most popular schools -- and the ones with the > > > > > > highest > > > > > > level of achievement -- are the ones that are independent, fee > > > > > > paying, > > > > > and > > > > > > encourage competition in all areas. > > > > > > But how many bright, poor, homeless people go there? Straw man, > > > > > I'm afraid. All of us are equally individual. I don't ascribe to > > > > > 'animal farm' ideals. Nor should you. Nor would I have thought you > > > > > would. > > > > > > > We don't live in the kind of utopia you're philosophy requires, > > > > > > sadly; > > > > > > Darwinism still reigns. > > > > > > Darwin, I would think, was intelligent enough to realise the value > > > > > of cooperation and coordination. If your liver started competing with > > > > > your pancreas, how long do you think you'd last? Our own bodies give > > > > > us the example of the > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
