Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [Krimel] > > So you would suggest scores on standardized tests as a measure? That might > > be a good start. Are there others measurements? > > [Platt] > 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. > > [Krimel] > All I am asking is: what is it you want to measure and how would you measure > it.
And I answered it. > > [Krimel] > > 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? > > [Platt] > 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. :-) > > [Krimel] > I am hard pressed to know what to make of this. You are saying you > personally were unmoved of the 911 victim's cries for help and tearful last > goodbyes. Unmoved? What does an emotional response have to be with expanded consciousness? > Your consciousness was unaffected by the photo of the American > flag being raise on Iwo Jima or the statue of Sadam Hussein being toppled or > the Apollo photos of the earth rising over the barren lunar landscape. > Television images of the Zapruder footage of the Kennedy assassination or > the televised testimony at the Watergate hearings, Clinton's testimony > during his impeachment, the Rodney King beating or the Trade Towers, > collapsing had no effect on your consciousness? All emotional. Has nothing to do with expanded consciousness. Emotions are rooted in the biological level, not the intellectual. > Living near a coastal area your awareness is unaffected by television > broadcasts of incoming storms pictured through satellite and radar imaging. > You really think paging through a two year old edition of Britannica can > give you information as current and far reaching or as quickly as wiki. Britannica is on the web in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, the availability of current and far reaching information has nothing to do with expanded consciousness, as tests of general knowledge so vividly illustrate. . > None of this has affected the depth of your understanding and awareness of > the world around you? Mo. Much of the data (news) is bogus and over-hyped. > I don't really want to think you are lying, disingenuous or simply that > dense. But if you say so, I am not surprised that you can neither define > "depth" nor suggest a way to assess it. Perhaps you have merely > misunderstood the question. Please tell me the later is the case. Typically if I disagree with your particular views you resort to smears, both overt and implied. Oh well . . . ------------------------------------------------- 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/
