[MD] The Academy is Evil! Here's what I'd do instead...

[118]

Hi Arlo,
Some comments below.  I did not shorten the post so I hope this gets through.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Mark]
> The example I will present is Darwinism.  Please tell me how this has changed
> over the last 100 years... and this concept of survival of the fittest.
>
> [Arlo]
> I am not an expert in anthropology, but if by Darwinism you mean "evolution", I
> think the entire field of genetics has undergone profound expansion, as one
> example, and this effects the fields of agricultural and virology, for two
> other examples.
>
> But I think you are trying to point to one specific thing, and that is
> "intelligent design" and/or "creationism" being adopted as valid, scientific
> alternatives to "naturalistic" evolution. So while the mechanics described by
> Darwin continue to be refined and tried and retried in many fields, I doubt
> this is what you mean.

[Mark]
No, I am not pointing to ID since this is all over the place right now
and is not a consistent theory, nor creationism although Evolution
does point to that.  What I mean is that evolution only looks at
survival from the ground up.  There is such a thing as Natural
Selection (which could be ID for all I know) that hasn't been
addressed.  Genetics as it stands simply is an extension of the
original theory.  There is no change.  Even epigenetics is part of
this.  So, in my opinion, the theory has not advanced at all.  There
are many problems with it.  For example, music cannot be accounted
for.  It can with Quality.
>
> Nonetheless, the Academy has seen "Darwinism" shaped into "social Darwinism",
> and if I am permitted a layman's use of Wikipedia there appears to be a branch
> of study now called "Neo-Darwinism", and this appears to be from something
> called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
>
> Also I see modern evolutionary thinking considers two main mechanisms, natural
> selection and genetic drift, and just a cursory look at the Wikipedia entry for
> that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift) shows a robust evolution of
> ideas across several domains.

[Mark]
Well, I'm sure Wiki is up to date on this kind of stuff.  They do
demean other possibilities, but that is just part of the times.  I do
have a problem with the original notion of survival through selection
processes with morphology being translated into other domains such as
the Big Bang and social structure.  But, it doesn't really interest me
that much unless someone wants to use it a justification for behavior.
 Then it is a cop out.
>
> [Mark]
> After that we can discuss Hegelianism or one of the many philosophies which is
> stagnant.
>
> [Arlo]
> Do you mean that the Academy is not open to new "interpretations" of Hegel? I'd
> say if its "stagnant" its crying out for a dissertation to that effect.
>
> What new ideas about Hegel do you feel the Academy has hindered or turned a
> blind eye to? If there is little "new" being done about the ideas of Hegel, I
> wonder if its not so much that the Academy is suffocating ideas about Hegel but
> more that no one has anything really new to say. Do you?

[Mark]
It was my attempt to learn from the philosophy side.  Have the ideas
of Hegel been advanced?  Or are they stagnant due to rigid dogma?  It
was just a question.  Science is constantly undergoing change in fits
and starts as technology allows.  Is philosophy stagnant once a
concept is formed.  The interest is more from the viewpoint of MOQ.
Are the writings of Pirsig the final say?
>
> I mean, if something new and better about Hegel came along, I can't see the
> Academy squelching it.
>
> I also think you are being too narrow here. I suppose fields like 18th French
> Poetry aren't exactly fertile grounds for rapid dynamic changes, but consider
> Poetry as a whole and you'll see quite an evolution in the Academy over the
> past 100 years.

[Mark]
Yes, I would agree with you about poetry and art.  It is possible that
religion is also advancing.
>
> [Mark]
> Show me a philosphy from the 1800's which has progressed significantly in the
> last 100 years.  This way we will be on your turf.  Maybe I'll learn something.
>
> [Arlo]
> Personally I see much interesting work being done about the ideas first offered
> by Lev Vygotsky. Activity Theory is a direct result of the evolution of his
> ideas. Where I work, we are looking to take his ideas about the "zone of
> promixal development" into new areas of assessment methodology, a form of
> "dynamic assessment".
>
> I've also seen a huge progression in the field of semiotics, and I've worked
> with a professor who has brought Peirce's ideas into a theory of creativity
> (Carl Hausman).

[Mark]
Cool, I will look these up and check out the changes.
>
> [Mark]
> If you want to paint me as an enemy that is fine.  But that is your doing, not
> mine.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well you made a comment about those who can't do, teach. I was only pointing
> out that berating people is one thing, offering something better is entirely
> different. Anyone can condemn the Academy for being too rigid, but what I am
> asking in response is what steps would they make to fix that.
>
> You've got quite a quick list below, I'll try to respond to few...

[Mark]
Yeah, I suppose the teach comment was uncalled for.  That is just the
way we speak in industry.  Maybe it is jealousy.
>
> [Mark]
> Open institutions...
>
> [Arlo]
> I am not sure what you mean. No tuition? No application process?

[Mark]
I think I meant open institutions to new ideas.
>
> [Mark]
> no tenure...
>
> [Arlo]
> Tenure was implemented to ensure professors were not answering to social
> institutions, but only to reason. If you remove it, how would you ensure that
> what professors taught was not dictated by whatever social body happened to
> hold power?

[Mark]
Hmmm.  Here you seem to be worried about the statics of political
authority, or the influence of the social level.  Well, that is
already fully entrenched in Academia.  The removal of tenure is to
keep the profession fresh.  If you are concerned about the influence
of money, well that is already there too.  The tenure does not seem to
protect against anything except being dismissed for poor performance.
>
> [Mark]
> limited professorship tour of duties which is rotating for new ideas...
>
> [Arlo]
> I wouldn't have wanted Carl Hausman expelled from the Academy just because he
> was there for a few years. I am lucky he was around when I was able to learn
> from him. So I am not sure that this serves students any better.

[Mark]
I am not speaking of expulsion necessarily, just a mixing up of
authority.  Professors seem to rise to the position of control, and
then only relinquish it at retirement or death (I suppose
incarceration and institutionalization is also possible).  This top
down authority seems to provide stagnancy or unfavorable static(ness).
>
> [Mark]
> No professorship after the age of 50.
>
> [Arlo]
> I take it all the best professors you have had were younger? I will admit when
> I first read this I laughed because I have long thought this should applied to
> politics, but I'd go further and say no politicians at any level over the age
> of thirty.

[Mark]
Again, I am not talking about expulsion, just making way.  If you want
to be a professor you have to be serious with the job.  Paying these
guys based on their past performance is not a good idea.  The age of
50 was arbitrary, just to give a number.  Got to make room for those
younger guys when they are most productive.  I agree, that some guys
like McCain are way too old.  Perhaps Regan too.  The way I look at
it, however, is the more these guys fall asleep the better off we are.
>
> But now you seem to be suggesting that "intellectual quality" is a function of
> age? And if we fired all professors at 50, I am not sure we'd be attracting the
> best to the field.

[Mark]
That is a good question.  Money does speak, but it also corrupts.  I
am not sure what would happen to the caliber of teaching.  My
prediction is that it would improve.  Just a thought experiment of
course.  It will never happen.
>
> [Mark]
> Open availability of all ideas, rather than just the ones promoted.
>
> [Arlo]
> This is a restatement of "rigidity", but how would you accomplish this?

[Mark]
Don't rightly know.  What I do see is a tenacity for what is accepted,
and a fear of coming up with new ideas.  Novelty should be encouraged
in some way.
>
> [Mark]
> The abolishment of Truth as something real.  The introduction of Quality into
> academia instead.
>
> [Arlo]
> Which is precisely what Ant, and DMB, are trying to do.

[Mark]
Yes, this may be true, but they do not seem to leave any room for
discussion outside of their notions.  There are others who are much
more intellectually promising.

>
> 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
>