[MD] Barfuersserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[David M]

Hi Arlo

Big difference between guidance and curriculum
and agenda setting. Students, of all ages, should
be able to pursue study in whatever way they want,
sure they can take advice from who they want.
Would such freedom cause collapse? Don't
see why. Of course, children seem to seek out
conformity all the time without encouragement.
I think natural SQ and DQ can take care of themselves.
Currently, the balance is far too heavy on previous
generations stuffing their favourite SQ down our
poor young throats. There is no greater intelectual
integrity than that which says let's question everything.
If the experts cannot justify themselves are they so
expert? That's not to say you can throw away existing
institutions, you gotta be able to replacethem with something
better.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Barfuersserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)


> [David M]
> There should be no curriculum only opportunities for exploration that can 
> be
> taken up or not. Free, dynamic, explorative and directed by curiosity.
>
> [Arlo]
> Do children, and college kids, *not* benefit from the guidance of an 
> expert? In
> selecting or suggesting readings, for example? If the expert plays no 
> role, why
> have classrooms at all? Why *not* just have a library? I don't mean these
> questions antagonistically, I think they are genuine questions relating to 
> the
> role of The Academy. And they apply at the curricular level as well as the
> classroom level.
>
> Again I think we need to be clear that the "creativity beaten out of kids" 
> is
> not a function of only "schooling". Family, church, peers, social groups,
> teams, sports, etc. all exert the same type of power-structurating on the
> child. Some would argue ANY social field, by its very nature, exerts 
> "violence"
> on the child/person. And this is not necessarily a BAD thing. Conforming 
> to
> social norms of behavior and thought is what has allowed the social level 
> to
> emerge from the biological, and persist over generations, AND (way, way 
> back)
> provide the foundation for the emergence of intellectual patterns.
>
> This type of conforming pull, I'd argue, is what makes a static pattern 
> (on any
> level) a static pattern. The intellectual level persists because it 
> conforms
> our way of thinking towards certain things. If we could abolish conformity
> outright, the levels would collapse. Not to say that you, or anyone, 
> proposes
> such an extreme, I say this only to highlight that the often called "sweet
> spot" is what is important. Balancing static conformity with enough 
> "freedom"
> to allow evolution forward (redundant on purpose), and not either leveling 
> or
> regression.
>
> Seen this way, the role of The Academy *should be* to provide the ongoing
> conformity necessary to prevent collapse, but in a way that fosters enough
> freedom to allow for evolution. No? Getting there without significant 
> reforms
> will be, no doubt, difficult. (One reason, I'd argue again, is the 
> changing
> nature of The Academy from a place where those who are interested in 
> pursuing
> intellectual patterns in their own right to a place where people come 
> looking
> for skills and certifications to get a job... the whole "grade" issue Dan
> brought out recently).
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
>
> 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/
>