On 29 Oct, 13:40, 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
> right too, that the 'chavs' can easily take advantage in our society -
> we could go a lot further and spot this in forms of 'intellectual
> chavism' and varieties of it in the 'holier 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 examinations instead 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 to do needs an 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.
>
Sometimes what appears 'complex' might actually be the simplest way
of achieving a goal. For that very reason, I see String Theory as the
simplest 'physics' that can actually account for all that which is
(and my take on string theory reduces the universe to a single entity--
it doesn't get any 'simpler' than that--that is, in structure, very
complex.). The goal for the universe is unknown to us but extant in
space-time, as the 'ends' are already a part of the whole, thus making
the system teleological 'de-facto'. Assuming 'no goal' for the
universe, to me, is not only short-sighted in that it overlooks the
obvious implications of the geometry of space-time, but also just
throws away the future simply because we don't have access to it.
Truth is almost always stranger than fiction.
> It's sad to see cricket venues I once hoped to be good enough 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?
>
Entertainment is great, but not when those who can't afford
entertainment are starving. In today's world, entertainment has
become a priority industry and that. in my opinion, is a sign of
serious social disease. Humanity needs to get it's priorities
straight or we'll all choke (due to oxygen producing trees being cut
down and/or burning and utilising the existing oxygen to burn the
trees that produces oxygen) and starve WHILE we watch our 'circuses'.
> 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 responsible 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 possessions, liberties,
> > > and
> > > virginities of the rest of the group.
>
> > > Darwin accurately noted the brutality of nature, and it's only idealism
> > > and
> > > rank utopianism that allows us to believe that it could be anything else.
> > > Those who are raised up without the 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, should then, 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 to OUR stage.
> > 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 obvious success of organisation, coordination
> > > > and cooperation and Darwin would agree with that. What reigns isn't
> > > > Darwinism, what reigns is caveman mentality--the bigger club/weapon
> > > > the better 'fit'. Bollocks. That reduces us to the least common
> > > > denominator rather than our highest ideals. We MUST get out of that
> > > > caveman thinking or we WILL be reduced back to that level.
>
> > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
