[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[David M]

Arlo

And why do philosophy? you might like this on Dewey:

http://davidhildebrand.org/articles/hildebrand_teaching.pdf

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Trouble With Wilber


> [Krimel]
> You are my hero, Arlo. Such incredible patience! Over the years I 
> have watched you wade through this crap tirelessly. I have always had 
> this Pollyanna belief that people are not really stupid they just 
> need to have things explained better or maybe they just have not been 
> presented with the right information.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well, I don't know about being patient. You should see me banging my 
> head against the computer sometimes. Luckily, I don't have to deal 
> with the deceptive and distortive rhetoric of xenophobic wing-nuts 
> often. In fact, only here really.
> 
> The whole "bash the Academy" crowd, which pretty much defines 
> right-wing politics, uses the same rhetoric generation in and 
> generation out. They labeled Pirsig a "radical professor" fifty years 
> ago, and still use that tired phrase with each new round of nonsense. 
> "Dumbing down our schools" is just another old, worn-out cliche, and 
> every time you hear it you are justified to roll your eyes and tread 
> with caution. More often than not, it is used to masquerade attacks 
> against non-white, non-European cultural information. Its the damned 
> liberals and foreigners who are ruining the country, destroying the 
> schools, blah blah blah.
> 
> Now, this is not to say "everything is fine". There are problems in 
> the current system that should be addressed. As I said, I think the 
> fundamental is deriving from our lack of true comprehension as to why 
> we are publically educating in the first place. I've spoken to many 
> people over the years, in and out of the Academy, and the most common 
> answer I get is "because its the right thing to do". Okay, but WHY? 
> What are our purposes?
> 
> If our goal is an informed citizenry for voting, then we should 
> certainly foreground history (American and World), political theory 
> and economics. But why fund art, music and vocational tracks then? 
> Why fund "literature"? Why fund "math"? If our goal is to meet the 
> demands of labor, why fund (again) literature and art? Why not turn 
> all public education into vocational learning? Most likely, education 
> serves a mixed goal set. And it should. In a complex society, the 
> outcomes of a public education are broad; vocational as well as 
> informed citizenry. But how do we determine who gets what and when? 
> How do we integrate "what" with something meaningful? Why should 
> Janey find reading "Catcher in the Rye" valuable? Why should Johnny 
> find learning long division valuable? Because it will "get them good 
> jobs"? Make them "better people"? I have this conversation with my 
> daughter all the time.
> 
> On a closing note, David Granger recommended a book to me a while 
> back that I am just now opening up and starting. "The manufactured 
> crisis : myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools" by 
> David Berliner. It looks like a good read. You may want to check it 
> out (I know we all have book lists that are impossibly long).
> 
> 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/
>