Re: [MD] 42
Right David I think much depends on not seeing the difference between spreading the light of wisdom and lighting free and independent candles. Jan-Anders 19 jan 2014 kl. 02:37 skrev david dmbucha...@hotmail.com: This is a tangential issue and nobody asked BUT please notice what Pirsig (via David Granger) is saying about relationship between academia and civilization From Granger's paper, called Dewey and Pirsig in Education: - The student[s'] biggest problem was a slave mentality which had been built into [them] by years of carrot-and-whip grading, a mule mentality which said, 'If you don't whip me, I won't work.' [They] didn't get whipped. [They] didn't work. And the cart of civilization, which [they] supposedly [were] being trained to pull, was just going to have to creak along a little slower without [them]. (ZMM, 175) Ironically, Pirsig thought, this is in direct contradiction to the academy’s claim that civilization “is best served not by mules but by free men” (ZMM, 175). And education is supposedly the means to this freedom. As tragic as this slave mentality sounds, Pirsig saw that it is unavoidable only if one presumes that the cart of civilization must be propelled by something outside itself, by disinterested mule-selves. Whether these mules are in front of or behind the cart matters little here. In either position, they bespeak of stubborn, laboring beasts – the polar opposite of artistically-engaged human beings -- beasts that have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. As I read this, proper education is of no importance unless you're interested in maintaining civilization. The academy, or rather the church of reason, supposedly says that civilization is best served not by mules by free men (free people) and it supposedly offers education as the means to this freedom. And what does it mean to NOT be a mule? What does it mean to be free, to liberated by this education? I suppose it's just like the man says. This kind of freedom means that it totally matters whether you're in front of or behind the cart of civilization. In fact, you're an artistically-engaged human being with a personal investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. The mules say that all this matters little. The stubborn, laboring beasts, by contrast, have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. Same as it ever was, I think we need throw out the money lenders. I mean, the church of reason has become corrupt in the same sort of way. For the most part, people think of higher education levels as the means to a higher income. Otherwise, most dads figure, college is a waste of money. That's not the kind of calculus that propers civilization forward, obviously. It's not crazy. Seems sensible, hard to argue with common sense realism. Blah, blah, blah, as everyone knows. But it's tragically narrow-minded and short-sighted and if everyone thought like that the whole freakin' deal would crap out in a hurry. In fact, that might be what's already happening. Or maybe that's just how stupid it is in America. Sigh. Look, I know we've all had some hell from bullies and tyrants at school. But that's not what Pirsig (or Dewey or Granger or any other serious person) is concerned about with respect to the church of reason or with respect to Western rationality. This is about some serious shit that is not terribly relevant to anyone's 5th grade teacher, you know? How can a democracy, like ours is supposed to be, with a bunch of mules voting? If the progress of civilization depends on the strength of free people to pull her forward, then what is the value of real education? 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 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 Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.eduwrote: [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? John: Not really what I had in mind. When I say more adaptive I'm thinking more diversity. That is a wider selection of options to reflect the world which is rapidly splitting. I see you mention this below so I'll discuss it more then. Arlo: 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: I think educational diversity makes it worthwhile to drop them. Part of the problem with a monolithic one size fits all system is that you have to figure out the common denominator and teach THAT. A lot of good stuff gets behind. Another problem is that social problems get writ large. It became unfashionable to teach home ec and auto shop as part of the high school curriculum and so they were eliminated everywhere. In a voucher system it would make economic sense to start up these kinds of specialty schools and even the poor would be able to afford them. [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: Well now that's a different discussion. I believe the intellectual level doesn't need protection. Partly because social patterning is so ubiquitous that it's impossible to escape anyway and partly because I disagree with this idea that the levels should be, or are, at war with each other. But I guess we'll leave that for another day. [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? John: Well that again is another discussion but I don't think the main effect of the mediascape is fracturing, I thinkit's uniting. I think regional differences are being lost because of it and I think the melting pot is a bad idea nowadays. Who wants a gluey pot of fondue-like sludge as the basis for a body politic? To my mind, Federalism and central control are the problems with the world today and no kind of solution. Gee Arlo, we disagree on so much. That's a good thing, we've got lots to discuss. Take care, 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
David, It's a well known fact that the quality of education you get in an ivy league school isn't that much better but it's the connections you make which guarantee success in the financial/corporate universe. That's kind of scary because you need those same connections to get into the top schools in the first place and that sounds like a hegemony to me. If the organizing principle of our civilization is opposed to freedom then upsetting the cart seems like a good goal to me, rather than pulling it. On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: This is a tangential issue and nobody asked BUT please notice what Pirsig (via David Granger) is saying about relationship between academia and civilization From Granger's paper, called Dewey and Pirsig in Education: - The student[s'] biggest problem was a slave mentality which had been built into [them] by years of carrot-and-whip grading, a mule mentality which said, 'If you don't whip me, I won't work.' [They] didn't get whipped. [They] didn't work. And the cart of civilization, which [they] supposedly [were] being trained to pull, was just going to have to creak along a little slower without [them]. (ZMM, 175) Ironically, Pirsig thought, this is in direct contradiction to the academy’s claim that civilization “is best served not by mules but by free men” (ZMM, 175). And education is supposedly the means to this freedom. As tragic as this slave mentality sounds, Pirsig saw that it is unavoidable only if one presumes that the cart of civilization must be propelled by something outside itself, by disinterested mule-selves. Whether these mules are in front of or behind the cart matters little here. In either position, they bespeak of stubborn, laboring beasts – the polar opposite of artistically-engaged human beings -- beasts that have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. As I read this, proper education is of no importance unless you're interested in maintaining civilization. The academy, or rather the church of reason, supposedly says that civilization is best served not by mules by free men (free people) and it supposedly offers education as the means to this freedom. And what does it mean to NOT be a mule? What does it mean to be free, to liberated by this education? I suppose it's just like the man says. This kind of freedom means that it totally matters whether you're in front of or behind the cart of civilization. In fact, you're an artistically-engaged human being with a personal investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. The mules say that all this matters little. The stubborn, laboring beasts, by contrast, have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. John: I'm a little confused by the above. David: Same as it ever was, I think we need throw out the money lenders. I mean, the church of reason has become corrupt in the same sort of way. John: Amen! DB: For the most part, people think of higher education levels as the means to a higher income. Otherwise, most dads figure, college is a waste of money. That's not the kind of calculus that propers civilization forward, obviously. It's not crazy. Seems sensible, hard to argue with common sense realism. Blah, blah, blah, as everyone knows. But it's tragically narrow-minded and short-sighted and if everyone thought like that the whole freakin' deal would crap out in a hurry. In fact, that might be what's already happening. Or maybe that's just how stupid it is in America. Sigh. John: Sigh indeed. DB: Look, I know we've all had some hell from bullies and tyrants at school. But that's not what Pirsig (or Dewey or Granger or any other serious person) is concerned about with respect to the church of reason or with respect to Western rationality. This is about some serious shit that is not terribly relevant to anyone's 5th grade teacher, you know? How can a democracy, like ours is supposed to be, with a bunch of mules voting? If the progress of civilization depends on the strength of free people to pull her forward, then what is the value of real education? Or for that matter, what is the value of a civilization that depends upon a few well-connected persons in the driver seats whipping a nation full of mules? Good piece David, 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] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Joe, You think DQ dwells in logos? imo it dwells in mythos, as Pirsig said: 'The ancient Greeks,' I say, who were the inventors of classical reason, knew better than to use it exclusively to foretell the future. They listened to the wind and predicted the future from that. That sounds insane now. But why should the inventors of reason sound insane? John On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote: 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 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 to Dan:
Finally, as DMB mentioned, Granger's ideas are exemplary here, and I'm not trying to skip
over citing his work. In fact, I think Dewey brings a strong voice into what I personally
feel is deep in the roots of the our educational dilemma; and that is we lack a coherent
answer to the question why do we educate?. What is the purpose of public
education? What is the purpose of college? Interestingly, vocational and trade schools
(in what I hope is taken in a Pirsigian sense, I'd include schools like the Julliard
School in this category) often have the most articulate answer to this question.
Andre:
Hi Arlo, Dan, dmb and All:
Educational questions are pertinent questions about purpose. I think that is
well put Arlo. Through my own wanderings and wonderings around some parts of
the globe I have been fortunate to have been exposed to a taste of four
educational systems and their environments: the Dutch (pre-,primary,lower
theoretical/technical)to Australian (high...theoretical/practical), Chinese
(middle...as a teacher where I taught at a teachers college)and Dutch again
(higher...theoretical/practical).
The conversation has been interesting thus far and I am not sure whether I can
add anything to its significance or pave a way for answering some of your
questions...especially regarding purpose.
I have two things in mind: a very general question of why are we here on earth?
What is our purpose here?
The second thing that mingles with this is Pirsig's variant on the Buddhist
poem on page 406 of LILA:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns...and then follow Dynamic Quality and morality will
be served
It appears to me that these lines refer to a non-dual perspective...the fusing
of what Paul, in his paper terms an epistemological and an ontological context.
Presently the vast majority of the purpose of education seems to lie not even
close to either the epistemological nor the ontological context: it is
presented as driven by the given: driven by economics, industry, private and
public business corporations...their values incorporated and reinforced through
('personal') exposure to and internalization of values serving their vested
interests (this is the ground stuff of mainstream education including parental)
plus a vast network of public service type values to keep the system
going...the political economy...the giant as Pirsig refers to it in LILA.
I see this as an emphasis on static patterns of value. My own experience (as a
beginning teacher) left very little room for reflection let alone talking about
purpose (apart from satisfying the needs of the giant...which is 'the
given'...the economic garbage). A strict adherence to policy was called for and
the (politically determined) guidelines were changed every 1 or 2 years
(depending on which party swung the scepter). There was no room for
professional innovation, autonomy or adjustment. So very soon, realizing that
certain prescribed methods simply did not work, one was told to simply follow
policy...and to lower standards of academic achievement if it was seen that
most students failed to pas exams. This of course in the context of a fair
amount of money being available for the educational institution for every
student who graduated.
Currently there appears to be too much emphasis on this nowhere land
(flatland). It is the 'sustaining (and incessantly improving) of biological and
social patterns'...with variations/innovations occurring on the same old
themes...and stamping these as 'creative'. The driving force of which, for
sure, is DQ but received, guided, maintained and projected into the future by a
commonly shared consciousness that is egocentric and narcissistic...just what
the giant wants and feeds on (fooling everyone of course because the only
winner is the giant and there really is no heaven above!).
This is the sq side of the equation.
As I hinted there appears very little to no time (or energy) to address the
other side of the equation...the DQ side. Times to reflect, ask question about
purpose, about arete (and not just in an economic or social status sense). But
not only reflect on static patterns. I mean it the way Pirsig argues...rta,
dharma and karma (evolutionary garbage and the dumping of this garbage).
Those moments when it is painfully obvious (and we see this every day on the TV
news and hear it on the radio and other social media) what the results are in
the clinging to the static patterns of the world and the role that current
educational policy and practices play in the perpetuation of this state of
affairs (plus of course the consequences when you don't).
Moments to detach oneself from these static patterns (LILA p407). Perhaps ways
should be found to build that right into the education system and not have it
relegated to one's 'personal/private' meditation room, one's whim ...or
whenever time and energy is found.
Re: [MD] 42
David, Right. What Pirsig is talking about here is his potential implementation of a non-grading system and how education has been misconstrued (by some) as obtaining a degree rather than gaining practical knowledge. On the basis of one man, one vote, the system was very unpopular. The majority of students definitely wanted their grades as they went along. But when Phædrus broke down the returns according to the grades that were in his book...and the grades were not out of line with grades predicted by previous classes and entrance evaluations...another story was told. The A students were 2 to 1 in favor of the system. The B and C students were evenly divided. And the D’s and F’s were unanimously opposed! This surprising result supported a hunch he had had for a long time: that the brighter, more serious students were the least desirous of grades, possibly because they were more interested in the subject matter of the course, whereas the dull or lazy students were the most desirous of grades, possibly because grades told them if they were getting by. [ZMM] Dan comments: It was the dull and lazy students--in other words, the would-be mules--that objected most to the system. The students who were motivated to learn--who were there to become better citizens, to rock the world if you will--were the ones to whom grades mattered least. I think you could say the same thing about true creative artists... it isn't the applause derived from recognition and sales of their work that drives them, although there is nothing wrong with putting food on the table either. Rather, they are interested, even compelled, to not only maintain civilization but to make it better. Sure, there are those who are and will always be only interested in financially bettering their pocketbooks. But don't we have to look at those folk as a sort of mule too? They were perhaps also enthralled to the notion that grades matter, and for them, the more money they make the higher grade they get. Doing away with grades is tantamount to doing away with money. How could anyone keep score if there are no grades? The old adage that it isn't about winning so much as it is about how the game is played has become outdated in many people's minds. Not only is it about winning, but winning is everything. Those who don't go along with this premise are shunted aside and ostracized as being losers. Thanks, Dan http://www.danglover.com On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:37 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote: This is a tangential issue and nobody asked BUT please notice what Pirsig (via David Granger) is saying about relationship between academia and civilization From Granger's paper, called Dewey and Pirsig in Education: - The student[s'] biggest problem was a slave mentality which had been built into [them] by years of carrot-and-whip grading, a mule mentality which said, 'If you don't whip me, I won't work.' [They] didn't get whipped. [They] didn't work. And the cart of civilization, which [they] supposedly [were] being trained to pull, was just going to have to creak along a little slower without [them]. (ZMM, 175) Ironically, Pirsig thought, this is in direct contradiction to the academy’s claim that civilization “is best served not by mules but by free men” (ZMM, 175). And education is supposedly the means to this freedom. As tragic as this slave mentality sounds, Pirsig saw that it is unavoidable only if one presumes that the cart of civilization must be propelled by something outside itself, by disinterested mule-selves. Whether these mules are in front of or behind the cart matters little here. In either position, they bespeak of stubborn, laboring beasts – the polar opposite of artistically-engaged human beings -- beasts that have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. As I read this, proper education is of no importance unless you're interested in maintaining civilization. The academy, or rather the church of reason, supposedly says that civilization is best served not by mules by free men (free people) and it supposedly offers education as the means to this freedom. And what does it mean to NOT be a mule? What does it mean to be free, to liberated by this education? I suppose it's just like the man says. This kind of freedom means that it totally matters whether you're in front of or behind the cart of civilization. In fact, you're an artistically-engaged human being with a personal investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. The mules say that all this matters little. The stubborn, laboring beasts, by contrast, have no immediate investment in or sense of connection to the larger cart of civilization. Same as it ever was, I think we need throw out the money lenders. I mean, the church of reason
Re: [MD] 42
Andre,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Andre andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
Arlo to Dan:
Finally, as DMB mentioned, Granger's ideas are exemplary here, and I'm not
trying to skip over citing his work. In fact, I think Dewey brings a strong
voice into what I personally feel is deep in the roots of the our
educational dilemma; and that is we lack a coherent answer to the question
why do we educate?. What is the purpose of public education? What is the
purpose of college? Interestingly, vocational and trade schools (in what I
hope is taken in a Pirsigian sense, I'd include schools like the Julliard
School in this category) often have the most articulate answer to this
question.
Andre:
Hi Arlo, Dan, dmb and All:
Educational questions are pertinent questions about purpose. I think that is
well put Arlo. Through my own wanderings and wonderings around some parts of
the globe I have been fortunate to have been exposed to a taste of four
educational systems and their environments: the Dutch (pre-,primary,lower
theoretical/technical)to Australian (high...theoretical/practical), Chinese
(middle...as a teacher where I taught at a teachers college)and Dutch again
(higher...theoretical/practical).
The conversation has been interesting thus far and I am not sure whether I
can add anything to its significance or pave a way for answering some of
your questions...especially regarding purpose.
I have two things in mind: a very general question of why are we here on
earth? What is our purpose here?
Dan:
Good questions... some would say that either we must have some sort of
purpose here or we're just mindless automatons wandering around
bumping into stuff.
If however we define purpose as: The object toward which one strives
or for which something exists ... we come to see the question is
predicated upon the assumption that we as independent entities are
(somehow) put here on earth to strive toward the object(s) of our
desire, which are in turn dictated by our cultural mores.
From Lila:
Now when we come to the chemistry professor, and see him studying his
empirically gathered data, trying to figure out what it means, this
person makes more sense. He's not just some impartial visitor from
outer space looking in on all this with no purpose other than to
observe. Neither is he some static, molecular, objective, biological
machine, doing all this for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. We see
that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as
the subatomic forces had when they had first began to create him
billions of years ago. He's looking for information that will expand
the static patterns of evolution itself and give both greater
versatility and greater stability against hostile static forces of
nature. He may have personal motives such as pure fun, that is, the
Dynamic Quality of his work. But when he applies for funds he will
normally and properly tie his request to some branch of humanity's
overall evolutionary purpose.
Dan comments:
So according to the MOQ, it seems our purpose is to become better.
Though we each have our own personal ways of accomplishing this goal
if we are to achieve it we must first look for it (educate ourselves
by gathering information which will lead to an expansion of static
quality values) before we can recognize our purpose is to give
humanity greater versatility and stability against the hostile forces
of nature.
Andre:
The second thing that mingles with this is Pirsig's variant on the Buddhist
poem on page 406 of LILA:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns...and then follow Dynamic Quality and
morality will be served
It appears to me that these lines refer to a non-dual perspective...the
fusing of what Paul, in his paper terms an epistemological and an
ontological context.
Presently the vast majority of the purpose of education seems to lie not
even close to either the epistemological nor the ontological context: it is
presented as driven by the given: driven by economics, industry, private and
public business corporations...their values incorporated and reinforced
through ('personal') exposure to and internalization of values serving their
vested interests (this is the ground stuff of mainstream education including
parental) plus a vast network of public service type values to keep the
system going...the political economy...the giant as Pirsig refers to it in
LILA.
I see this as an emphasis on static patterns of value. My own experience (as
a beginning teacher) left very little room for reflection let alone talking
about purpose (apart from satisfying the needs of the giant...which is 'the
given'...the economic garbage). A strict adherence to policy was called for
and the (politically determined) guidelines were changed every 1 or 2 years
(depending on which party swung the scepter). There was no room for
professional innovation, autonomy or adjustment. So very soon,
