Re: [MD] 42
Arlo and Dan, [Arlo] First, Dan, I'm not trying to be difficult here, educational reform is a very big area of interest to me. There are many legitimate concerns over the present way we educate; pedagogical, functional, structural, economic, etc., and legitimate concerns over establishing privilege and cultural hegemony (see Paulo Freire, for example). So I'm genuinely concerned here to hear what you (and others) think (1) is wrong (specifically and generally), and (2) what would something better look like. JohnC: I agree Arlo that the subject is of utmost importance. We can come up with the most wonderful and correct metaphysics but unless we figure out how to translate that to oncoming generations, nothing will change for the better. (1) The main thing wrong is entrenchment. We have a rapidly evolving world but the academic world isn't adaptive enough to keep up with those changes. Unions and tenure may have served a good purpose in the past but now they are part of the problem. (2) The solution is to open up the field - vouchers. Give families power and choice and give hot teachers freedom from the system. Sure some failures will occur but I believe an evolutionary competition is the best way to improve the whole educational system. John 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] 42
[John] The main thing wrong is entrenchment. We have a rapidly evolving world but the academic world isn't adaptive enough to keep up with those changes. [Arlo] Is this saying that the content of what, the information as it were, is outdated? Some have suggested that instead of information per se, the modern world requires more 'information literacy' skills, and this is what schools should focus on. Does the above agree with this? Also, one of the purposes of a 'less adaptive' academy is to prevent against (1) following every latest fad and whim before its evaluated, and (2) as with unions/tenure to guard against social winds that masquerade as intellectual. Are there ways, in the 'adaptive' setting you envision, to protect against these things? Or is it worth it to drop these safeguards all together? [John] Unions and tenure may have served a good purpose in the past but now they are part of the problem. [Arlo] Why do you think the 'free market' wasn't able to protect the intelllectual level from the social in the past, but now will do so? How would the intellectual level be protected from becoming a servant of the social level? How is this different than before? [John] The solution is to open up the field - vouchers. [Arlo] We have already seen a world where a common mediascape has fractured into distinct, and often antagonistic, worlds. For many, a valuable goal of education is the transmission of shared cultural structures; things every American has read, or experienced, or done. Some have said that schools are the last remaining melting pot (for good or for bad). If we fracture the educational landscape into millions of isolated bubbles, do you think this would have unintended consequences? Also, am reminded of this quote: Now I understand that one of the important reasons for going to college and getting an education is to learn that the things you've believed in all your life aren't true, and that nothing is what it appears to be. ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Joe, On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: Hi John and All, Imho metaphysics is a structure for knowledge. Definition is required for the consideration of structure, true or false! False. If there is some structure, the consideration of it IS the definition of it. Consideration is required for definition, not the other way around. Joe: Pirsig proposes a structured DQ/SQ metaphysics. John: Well not the way you use structured. He certainly did not offer a whole a complete metaphysics. Not in only two books he didn't, which were mostly rhetorical art. He offered a critique of existing metaphysical positions and the outlines for a possible new metaphysics. To a framer, the outlines is the whole structure but I've found people want wall board and paint before they choose to dwell therein. Joe: DQ is indefinable. In what form is DQ perceived? John: In many forms, depending upon what level you're framing the question. To the social level, DQ is that mysterious moving finger which picks some people to be famous celebrities like Barak Obama. But ultimately as a concept, I'd say DQ is perceived by the blended mind - Romantic and Classic - when a scientist comes upon a truth that is so beautiful he just intuitively knows its true. When an artist creates something beautiful that makes sense to most people. I think DQ can't be defined because it can't be intellectually encapsulated but it can be perceived artistically. Thus Pirsig's dictum, you can't define it but you know what it is. Joe: A structured experience of individuality 1 becomes the basis for the realization of DQ true or false, John: True. Absolutely. Joe: not experience itself which remains indefinable DQ/SQ. Ya lost me there. John PS: On 1/14/14 11:02 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: seems to me that if something is truly indefinable, then the only way it can maintain its meaning is if you don't define it (talk about it). is exactly right. It's a if-then statement which leads to an absurdity therefore proof that nothing is truly indefinable. which I can support from another direction if you want. If definition is an evolving project then who knows where it will end up in the future? You can't say. The best you could say is DQ is undefined, not indefinable. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Hi John and All, Logos and logic. Imho DQ dwells in all realities. Indefinable occurs in all reality DQ/SQ. Freedom is sacred. Joe On 1/17/14 11:27 AM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote: The best you could say is DQ is undefined, not indefinable. 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/md/archives.html
Re: [MD] 42
Arlo, On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:51 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote: [Dan] Parlay that into the classroom. School is far more than a student learning from the instructor. Peer pressure to conform, social hierarchy, fear of failure and fear of success not only on the students' part the the instructors' as well, even bullying... these all play an enormous role in learning. [Arlo] Certainly. And there are many more either unintended or 'invisible' effects/consequences. Economic sorting has long been unspoken 'goal' of most industrial-era public education (which holds over to today). There is little secret that very early on decisions are made as to which students will receive the bulk of educational resources and which will be passed along to eventually occupy low-wage factory or similar labor. Some of the issues you point to above stem from the social capital aspect of education, where worth very early on is tied to perceived future economic worth. Bullying, which occurs throughout social structures, not just education, is the visible, violent arm of social conformity. [Dan] What qualities do the good instructors possess that the mediocre ones do not? Is it access to money? Is it a product of economic success? Are these qualities something that can be taught? And if so, why are they not taught on a more pervasive basis? Does peer pressure run rampant among the instructors as well as the students? [Dan] Perhaps making some sort of applied ethics course mandatory for first-year students might be analogous to learning how to roll their socks on the proper way. [Arlo] By first-year students you are suggesting college freshmen? Shouldn't something like this be integrated all the way down to the first years of public school? I think schools have tried to approach respect, diversity, empathy, but without a coherent structure to support this practice, it often ends up made impotent by larger community and cultural (often familial) forces that mock such attempts. [Dan] I think a more structured program would work better for older students while the younger ones learn more by emulating the adults in their life. To the degree teachers engage the students they can have either a minimal impact or an enormous one. Show, don't tell. [Dan] Again, maybe I am being over simplistic here but doesn't it all start with learning respect, not only for our own self and our body, but for others too? [Arlo] Most certainly. But this gets back to the question why educate?. Many argue that its not the role of schooling to teach 'respect' (formally, or even informally), this is up to parents who have, in this view, the right to teach their kids that mocking 'retards' and 'fat kids' and 'fill-in-any-slur' is okay. To view an extreme case, wouldn't the Westboro families argue that it is their right to teach their kids that god hates fags? [Dan] I think this is indicative of a short-sighted point of view. The kids who are being taught hate and intolerance today are the same ones who will grow up to teach their children hate and intolerance. It is the same with domestic abuse. Boys grow up learning it is okay to slap the little woman around if she gets out of line. Girls learn to play submissive roles and to expect violence, to even search it out. Where do the parents who teach their children these things learned it from? It isn't enough to talk about the Golden Rule in kindergarten or in Sunday school. It seems to me that elementary school teachers have the perfect opportunity to effect real change in these kids not by teaching them outright--by telling them no, this is bad--but by subtle subliminal suggestions using body language or pictorial imagery. That the parents will object is a given. But perhaps a hundred or two hundred or even three hundred years from now people will read stories of the hatred that permeated the 21st century and wonder why. Again, show, don't tell. [Arlo] My feeling on this is that 'respect' has to be something valued by the culture as a whole, that this is part of the 'it takes a village' understanding that much of who we are is appropriated from social and cultural historical structures. A culture that values violence will be violent. A culture that values intolerance will be disrespectful to anyone different. A culture that values social status will turn all forms of behavior into social capital. A culture that values wealth will turn all forms of material into economic capital. [Dan] Glorifying the winner begins early. I remember coaching Little League and playing against teams fanatical about winning and yet with players sadly lacking in fundamental skills. The coaches of those teams went out of their way to acquire the best pitchers available. They dominated the opposing teams to the extent none of the batters could get a hit thus the fielding skills were non-existent. I would hear kids on my team grumbling about
