Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [Krimel] > > How would you measure depth? Most of the scientists, philosophers, > > theologians who ever lived are working today. There are most doctors, > > teachers and students. Would you say the shear number of them and their > > proportions in the population at large are factors? How able the > > percentage of people operating at the various levels of Maslow's hierarchy > > > of need? Or the percentage who or literate or the average number of hours > > per week available to pursue depth? > > > > Are these just gimmicks? > > > > Cell phones? Can anyone forget the recorded calls of victims saying their > > goodbyes from the World Trade Center or those hijacked planes? We and > > anyone living henceforth can share identical memories of those voices. > > Doesn't something in that count for depth? > > > > Wiki? How many times has Wiki been cited on this forum? Most of us rely on > > it instantly to provide information about everything from global warming > > to the Ramones. Don't you think that your use of it has increased the > > depth of your understanding and expanded your consciousness? > > > > Mp3 and video compression allow you listen to or watch everything from the > > BBC's In Our Time to the programming on Wilber's Integral Naked site. > > Surely this is only further evidence that I do not understand the problem > > but even if you factor in pay-per-view webcams and off shore virtual > > casinos the range of options represented is more than simply horizontal. > > > > There has never been the promise of increased depth either from spiritual > > practice or academic discipline or shear hedonism. But writing, printing > > and now all of these "gimmicks" have made the acquisition of depth easier > > and therefore more probable. > > > > But I could be wrong. How would you measure depth; even enough to say it > > isn't there? > > [Platt] > Try this: > > "PRINCETON, NJ -- 18 December 2002 -- Contemporary college seniors scored on > > average little or no higher than the high-school graduates of a half-century > > ago on a battery of 15 questions assessing general cultural knowledge. The > questions, drawn from a survey originally done by the Gallup Organization in > > 1955, covered literature, music, science, geography, and history. They were > asked again of a random sample of American college and university students > by Zogby International in April 2002. The Zogby survey was commissioned by > the National Association of scholars." > > [Krimel] > So you would suggest scores on standardized tests as a measure? That might > be a good start. Are there others measurements?
I would stick with measures of assessing general knowledge, not standardized tests which have been dumbed down over the years to accomodate the general deterioration in public education. The viability of a democracy depends on an educated citizenry. I fear for the future. > I am also curious about how you think some the examples above have affected > you personally. Have they enhanced the depth and breath of your personal > experience or left them unchanged? Cell phone - don't own one. Wiki - more convenient than Encyclopedia Britannica, but no greater depth. MP3 - don't use. Videos - none enlightening that I can recall. But a book like Lila? Now that's a truly deep experience. :-) ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
