[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:30 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:> See, that's
a bit Euro-centric for a tribal college.  Some grounding in
>
> > understanding the conquering power is good, no doubt.
>
> That's one way to look at it. I see it as grounding in the modern age.
>
>
Well your way of looking at it is less hostile than mine.   So I'll go with
yours.  I think that the hippies - tribal movements of the 70's threw out
too much baby, not enough dirty bath water and there's been a large - scale
denigration of Western European "Conquerors" - buncha academic reactionaries
- since that leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I chew on words like
"Western European 'Conquerors' " - so what are we supposed to do?  Live in
teepees and forgo flush-based plumbing?

Hey then, I'm half-way there.

But at the same time, there's this Giant, and it has a certain manifestation
that tromps us into the soil and we have to oppose it; even if it means
going too far sometimes....  rhetorically speaking, of course.  There's too
far and then there's too too-far.




>
> I don't think your proposal represents anything new. Different, yes. But
> not new except for the emphasis on teaching the MOQ along with other
> metaphysical theories.
>
>
Ok, I don't know what "new" means anyway.  "There is nothing new under the
sun."  New doesn't really exist.  New to me, new to you, those are
meaningful categories but objective newness is probably pretty rare.

However, weaving Indian culture and thinking into a new way of dealing with
the white man's world - heck, just giving the Indians a name for it like
"SOM" and a way of handling it that way is new, simply because the MoQ is
new.

And teaching excellence, Arete, at a place already called "DQ University"
for religious reasons... ha.  It's too delicious to not contemplate.

So I don't really see teaching the MoQ amongst other metaphysics.   I see
teaching it as the sole, guiding metaphysics of the whole place.  The whole
Western Academic world turns it back on the MoQ just like the rich
Victorians turn their back on the Indians as worthless.  So make an alliance
of the rejects.



> > > Reverse the learning process. Students do the reading, teacher answers
> > > questions about the reading.
>
> > I'm thinking of a link Ron posted a while back about the differences in
> an
> > Oral transmission vs. a written one.  I think for an Indian school,
> > affirmation of oral traditional methods on an academic scale would be
> more
> > attractive and useful.
>
> I'd prefer a balance between off-the-cuff verbal and more thoughtful
> writing.
>


Well the phenomena of the internet has actually returned a smattering of
literacy skills to the youth of America.  And a need for them.  The need for
computer literacy too, is paramount.

I can see the benefit of a balanced approach.  You should be comfortable
expressing yourself in person or on paper or online to be a graduate of any
college.



> > > Set a time limit. Otherwise, classes could
> > > go on forever. Forget "communal consensus." (Students vote on who
> > > passes, fails)
>
> > All teaching should "go on forever" rather than be walled off in sections
> of
> > your life.
>
> Learning should go on forever. But I don't think one should stay in
> college forever.
>
>
This particular university is rather small at present, swallowed up by huge
fields of agriculture in Northern California's central valley.   I can see
it as a small seed, growing into a big flower.  And why can't you stay in
college if you want?  If you are working and growing enough food to feed
yourself, if you've mastered the ability to make earthen-wooden homes of
proper solar orientation and thermal mass to be self-sufficient and
self-sustaining, then stay as long as you need.

And come back when you are tired of life and want to be a monk.  Monastic
societies used to be the generators of civilization.  Where have they gone?





> > The teacher is part of this community and when trusting in consensus,
> even a
> > minority has power to halt the process.... I imagine the way it would
> work
> > is that the students would be eager to move on, but the teacher would be
> the
> > main force holding them back until they all demonstrably "got it".
>
> What are students supposed to "get?"
>
>
Peace of mind, Platt.  Peace of mind on the part of the teacher that the
subject matter has been successfully transmitted.

"To assemble Japanese bicycle requires peace of mind."  To assemble students
brain even moreso!



> What are students supposed to "understand?"  Pirsig's metaphysics? If
> this site is any indication that will be a bit of a problem.
>
>
Never underestimate the power of a captive audience.  (in person, you can
use a cattle prod)