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

[118]

Hi Tim and Arlo,

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:22 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Tim]
> But, the academy, and the entire educational system, is a social structure, so
> you cannot expect any revolutionary change to come from the inside.

As it turns out, evolutionary jumps come from the inside, but they
need environmental pressure to occur.  It is an interaction,
entanglement if you want.  This is of course just an analogy from
biology.  Pressure on the academy has to come from those who are
funding it, and that would be us.
>

> [Tim]
> The academy is continually finding a sort of dynamic equilibrium with the
> slowly changing society it serves.  And, if you compare it with other social
> institutions, I think I will have to agree with dmb, I don't have the exact
> quote here, but, to paraphrase, the academy is probably the shining star.

[Mark]
Yes, you are pointing to a growth concept here.  The intellect serves
the society, not the other way around.  I think there is some
confusion about this around here.  It would seem our current political
theoreticians are confused as well.
>
>
> [Tim]
> But, the academy is no place for revolutionaries.  You won't find them there.
> The academy is a place for tortoises (not hares).  And again, socially
> speaking, this is probably proper and for the best.

[Mark]
Actually it is a great place for mavericks.  Just look at Phaedrus.  I
agree with Arlo on this (below).
>
> [Arlo]
> For the most part, I'd say this is correct. But as I said way back, I wouldn't
> confuse being "outside the Academy" with ipso facto being a revolutionary.
> There are quite a number of "nutjobs" hanging out outside those walls.
>
> Pirsig's own case is interesting. He was "outside" to the extent that he
> finalized much of thinking after his experiences there, but he is not a full
> outsider. He taught at the Montana State University, he went to graduate school
> at the University of Chicago and taught classes and the University of Illinois.
> A lot of his ideas took initial root via his friendship and activity with
> Dusenberry, also a professor at MSU, whose academic work brought Pirsig into
> contact with "the Indians". And even years after his involvement in the Academy
> ended, he has been actively involved in support Ant's PhD.
>
> [Tim]
> I don't remember the precise numbers, but it was something like - and, you all
> probably know that 'Science' is the creme de la creme of science journals - 3
> years after publishing only 25% of the articles published in 'Science' have not
> been proven faulty.  My point is that even amongst the best we have to offer,
> it is not all that great.

[Mark]
Science Magazine is a political journal as well as scientific.  The
first part of the journal is devoted to society, the second are
research articles.  Science is faulty by nature.  It is always
progressing.  If it were complete without fault, I would move on to
something else.  Again I agree with Arlo below (wow!).
>
> [Arlo]
> I actually think this is a GOOD thing, and demonstrates science's evolving
> understanding. But, yes, it is a bad thing when lose sight of the provisional
> nature of "truth" and begin to think that whatever "Science" says is True for
> all ages.
>
[SNIP]

> [Tim]
> The point, for me, is that if you want a better society - or any social
> structure there-within - you have to do the hard work of making a better
> society.  Social structures react to compulsion.  Again, perhaps this is for
> the best.
>
> [Arlo]
> Agree. I said something similar to John or Mark yesterday. A lot of these
> problem would "go away" when (and sadly, if) the root understanding of ZMM
> spreads. The problems with the Academy, the problems with in the local mechanic
> shops, the problems with the labor alienation and consumerism, etc etc etc.

[Mark]
And our job is to encourage that spread.
>
> [Tim]
> Is it possible to have a society that does not force individuals to compromise
> (dynamic) Quality?
>
> [Arlo]
> I think your question is oxymoronic, as "society" is by definition static
> patterns of value. The closest analogy I can think of otherwise is a state of
> pure anarchy, but the freedoms we enjoy that permit intellectual activity would
> rapidly disappear. Some balance between static and Dynamic Quality is what
> moves evolution forward.

[Mark]
I think the concept of "force" is wrong here.  Society grows.
>
> [Tim]
> Or, is society such a constraint on dynamic (and intellectual) Quality that we
> will forever be nibbling at the margins?

[Mark]
If we construe the concept of constraint rather than growth, then bad
things happen.  How big can the government get?  I think the idea is
that in the end everybody can work for the government, and get what he
need to live.  Platt and I are against this.  (Hope you agree with
this Platt, I am making assumptions, but I consider you to relate to
this world as I do).
>
Cheers,
Mark

>
> 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
>