[MD] George Steiner interview (Andre)
John Carl
ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 14:49:31 PST 2014
John L.
May I call you JL? It's a brotherly thing because I'm a John too and oft
go by JC.
I like this a lot. I agree with both assertions absolutely.
So there.
JC
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, T-REXX Techs, Inc. <
trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "What may or may not lie beyond experience..." If you qualify experience
> as
> "physical experience", then a level of experience beyond that makes perfect
> sense.
>
> I can think of two self-imposed limitations of the MOQ:
> 1. Its deliberate avoidance of theistic language constrains it. How
> can you talk about absolute reality without using the language of Absolute
> Reality?
> 2. It remains open-ended. To the extent that open-endedness allows it
> to be extended, expanded, enhanced, and in general, used in many ways to
> make living, working, and thinking better, that's not a limitation. I thin
> that's what Dr, Pirsig intended. But if "open-ended" is taken to mean "end
> of story; that's all there is", then that's self-imposed limitation.
>
> There you go, Pilgrims. Jump on it and have fun with it.
>
> Fraternally,
>
>
> John L. McConnell
> Office: 407-859-2637
> Cell: 321-438-6301
> Home: 407-857-2004
> Email: trexxtechs at bellsouth.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:06 PM
> To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 98, Issue 18
>
> Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
> moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: George Steiner interview (Andre)
> 2. Re: 42 (ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR)
> 3. Re: 42 (ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR)
> 4. Re: 42 (John Carl)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:20:36 +0100
> From: Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] George Steiner interview
> Message-ID: <52D3AFE4.6000309 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> David Morey said:
> 'Thanks Dave that is great,? George's Grammars of Creation is a great
> book about transcendence if you fancy it,? all about the need to think
> about what may or may not lie beyond experience and how important this
> has been in human culture,...'
>
> Andre:
> Lie 'beyond' experience? You sound like Marsha who tried to find out
> what lay 'beyond' the MoQ. And you call that 'An interesting work that
> could, given an open mind,? help develop the MOQ beyond some of its
> self-imposed limitations as I see it'.
>
> It would appear, as you phrase it, that the MoQ has 'self-imposed
> limitations' and that there must be something lying beyond it.
>
> Which limitations of the MoQ? are you thinking of David? And what could
> be lying 'beyond' the MoQ?
>
> Within this context let's look at what Phaedrus suggests in ZMM:
> 'All the time we are aware of millions of things around us...We could
> not possibly conscious of these things and remember all of them because
> our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to
> think. From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and
> call consciousness is never the same as awareness because the process
> mutates it. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of
> awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world'.(ZMM p75)
>
> In LILA the terms have changed but my take on the last line from ZMM and
> transposing that into MoQ terms is: We take a handful of sand (static
> patterns of value)from the endless landscape of awareness (Quality) and
> call that handful of sand the world (the MoQ). In other words awareness
> is Quality and what we call consciousness are the static patterns of
> value derived from that Quality.
>
> That 'deriving from'...that 'abstracting from'...is the Quality event.
> It is the /cause /of consciousness...the subjects and objects we
> deduce...the static patterns of value. The static patterns of value are
> 'in' this awareness as much as that the MoQ is the ink on the page
> called Quality. Quality has the MoQ. Awareness has consciousness. And,
> we can understand Quality, call it non-duality to also 'have' SOM
> (duality). It can simply 'contain' it without any contradiction, to be
> used whenever it is pragmatically useful to do so.
>
> It seems that this is quite consistent with the MoQ as well as all the
> perennial philosophy books I have read.
>
> Anyway, this is my take on it. If there are any serious issues with this
> I'd like to hear them.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:43:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> To: moq discuss <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] 42
> Message-ID: <742416775.375376.1389631427064.JavaMail.zimbra at psu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> [John]
> I really like those animated talk things. They seem to capture our
> attention in a broad way.
>
> [Arlo]
> They are very well done, for sure. Here's another one I see come up now and
> again: EPIC 2020 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gU3FjxY2uQ)
>
> Its a recast of an older video (EPIC 2014,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s), which was primarily about the
> shifting information 'mediascape', using the same 'future voice' to
> describe
> educational changes that occur between now and 2020. However, if you watch
> them both back-to-back, you'll see that the original one (2014) wasn't
> presenting a utopic future per se, but asked critical questions about where
> these changes took (take) us, and what unintentional consequences may be.
> The education one (2020) is nearly entirely utopic, condemning the present
> state of education and presenting an future-perfect scenario where online,
> open, automated (AI), degree-less, tuition-less, 'education' functions so
> well that only 'misguided' and 'misinformed' people do not turn to
> intelligent online programs for all their informational, educational needs.
>
> "Ph?drus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but that
> you lose something."" (ZMM)
>
> [John]
> And I think that's a good thing because you always value the teaching most
> that you seek out rather than have shoved down your throat whether you're
> in
> a receptive mood or not.
>
> [Arlo]
> If I'm understanding, this is mostly a comment on public/compulsory (K-12)
> education? Post-secondary education, whether technical, academic,
> vocational
> or otherwise is voluntary, so the act of self-registering is a form of
> seeking out 'information/learning'. Is this, then, a call for eliminating
> compulsory education all together? Or is it more a call for reform to the
> way curricula are adhered to (the factory model of ken robinson's video)?
>
> [John]
> Also I realize that this style isn't appropriate for every subject but it
> seems to me that for the art of programming - and the culture of
> programmers- it's uniquely appropriate.
>
> [Arlo]
> How do you mean? I see this simplified to something like "programmers
> should
> not be forced to learn things (about programming?) they don't value"? Would
> you say that one of the goals for the instructor is to demonstrate 'why'
> something is valuable that not all students may initially understand? Or is
> this, too, some form of educational-violence?
>
> [John]
> Again, programming is different. If you're good at it you can get a good
> job. It doesn't matter if you have a degree or are self taught.
>
> [Arlo]
> How would a prospective employer know you're good at it? Believe me, I do
> not think 'degrees' in and of themselves prove a person can do anything
> (one
> of the more recent 'techno' reforms is digital badging, an idea built off
> of
> older competency-based models of education), but if we eliminate
> degrees/grades, how do you suggest our skill(s) be packaged so that an
> employer can see what we can do? Portfolios try to address this, do you
> think these are better? What about certifications? I see computer jobs all
> the time that advertised for people with so-and-so certification. Would
> that
> go out with degrees?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:29:22 -0500 (EST)
> From: ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> To: moq discuss <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] 42
> Message-ID: <1083138947.434571.1389634162890.JavaMail.zimbra at psu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> [Dan]
> I have a a few questions. Does academic schooling tend to breed out
> creativity in students?
>
> [Arlo]
> This is (as I see it) actually two separate questions. (1) Does the current
> model of education in practice in most schools breed out creativity in
> students? and (2) Does academic schooling 'ipso facto' breed out creativity
> in students?
>
> That is, is 'schooling' itself the issue, or is it the 'way we school'?
> IMHO, the answer to the first is most assuredly "yes", and study after
> study
> shows this to be case. This is starting to change, mostly because
> post-industrial economies require original/creative thinking whereas
> industrial economies (on which our current educational model still follows)
> not only de-emphasized creativity and critical thinking but deliberately
> and
> actively moved to squelch them.
>
> My answer to the second is "no", schooling (or learning, or instruction, or
> education) is not anti-creativity. Bourdieu has suggested that all forms of
> 'enculturation' were a form of symbolic violence. But, of course,
> enculturation was also necessary for agency. The extreme idea of a lone
> person who matures in isolation on a desert island may not have any forms
> of
> symbolic violence exerted against her/him, but will have very little agency
> to act in the world.
>
> You give a child a toy car, you've just coerced them (enculturated them)
> into seeing the world a certain way.
>
> The key to this (again, IMHO) is the shift Pirsig made (as an instructor).
> He didn't abolish the teaching of rhetorical 'structure' (outlines,
> authoritative references, footnotes, etc.) but taught these structures as
> ways of increasing learner agency in their writing. In this light, what we
> need is not to abolish the teaching of structure, but to contain that in a
> larger system where these structures can be evaluated as to how good they
> serve an intended purpose.
>
> [Dan]
> Arlo's talk of accessing the student's development and moving it along
> seems
> to indicate there are pre-designated parameters at work. Are these
> parameters based upon the individual students or are they cookie-cutter
> style textbook learning exercises designed to mimic rather than open new
> vistas?
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course there are 'pre-designated' parameters, education presupposes that
> at point A there is something a person can not do, you have the educational
> intervention, and then at point B they can do it. The instructor should
> know
> what is necessary to make this transition and help the student take the
> steps they need to bridge this gap. A skilled guitar instructor will see
> what you can do, where you struggle, and keep your activities oriented to
> keep challenging you, build upon what you know, and offer strategies for
> overcoming deficiencies.
>
> Of course I'm not suggesting a "cookie-cutter style", that is exactly the
> opposite of why Vygotsky described the ZPD. I've actually used Pirsig's
> example of the student writing about the brick as an example of a ZPD
> intervention. Pirsig (the 'expert') was able to determine where the student
> (the 'novice') was, and suggest specific opportunities for her to grow
> (between stagnating and failing). He was able to help her find that
> specific
> point where she had the prior knowledge but could extend her knowledge into
> doing something she previously could not do.
>
> [Dan]
> Can creativity be taught? Or is the foundation of learning rooted in a kind
> of monkey-see monkey-do?
>
> [Arlo]
> This question presupposes creativity is either innate or learned. I tend to
> see it interwoven between these two 'poles'. Maybe something like the
> capacity for creativity is innate, but the ability to create is learned.
> And, I'd argue that this ability to create (agency) is inherently tied to
> the appropriation of structure (whether learned formally or informally,
> structured education or trial-and-error learning).
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:27:54 -0800
> From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] 42
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAKPdW3mdJJCEDmsD6VTcOJAnkJr6kOj_3Oib_gBQaGLVgb6r8Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Arlo,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:43 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR
> <ajb102 at psu.edu>wrote:
>
> > [John]
> > I really like those animated talk things. They seem to capture our
> > attention in a broad way.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > They are very well done, for sure. Here's another one I see come up now
> > and again: EPIC 2020 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gU3FjxY2uQ)
> >
> > Its a recast of an older video (EPIC 2014,
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s), which was primarily about
> > the shifting information 'mediascape', using the same 'future voice' to
> > describe educational changes that occur between now and 2020. However, if
> > you watch them both back-to-back, you'll see that the original one (2014)
> > wasn't presenting a utopic future per se, but asked critical questions
> > about where these changes took (take) us, and what unintentional
> > consequences may be.
>
>
>
> J: Yes I was getting tired and in a hurry but I should have said for Point
> 3: The average child now experiences fast-paced stimuli on an almost
> constant basis like never before.
>
> That's a big issue for the future.
>
>
> A:
>
> The education one (2020) is nearly entirely utopic, condemning the present
> > state of education and presenting an future-perfect scenario where
> online,
> > open, automated (AI), degree-less, tuition-less, 'education' functions so
> > well that only 'misguided' and 'misinformed' people do not turn to
> > intelligent online programs for all their informational, educational
> needs.
> >
> >
> J: I believe more than half the school's function is to socialize humans.
> It's already being lost to a virtual world, what happens when you eliminate
> all contact with the outside world? Shivers.
>
>
>
> > "Ph?drus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but
> > that you lose something."" (ZMM)
> >
> > [John]
> > And I think that's a good thing because you always value the teaching
> most
> > that you seek out rather than have shoved down your throat whether you're
> > in a receptive mood or not.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > If I'm understanding, this is mostly a comment on public/compulsory
> (K-12)
> > education? Post-secondary education, whether technical, academic,
> > vocational or otherwise is voluntary, so the act of self-registering is a
> > form of seeking out 'information/learning'. Is this, then, a call for
> > eliminating compulsory education all together? Or is it more a call for
> > reform to the way curricula are adhered to (the factory model of ken
> > robinson's video)?
> >
>
> J: I'm mostly focused on the k-12 area, yes. And it's not the compulsory
> I despise, it's the compulsory along very narrow lines. I'm for
> decentralizing the education system through vouchers, remeber? :)
>
>
>
> >
> > [John]
> > Also I realize that this style isn't appropriate for every subject but it
> > seems to me that for the art of programming - and the culture of
> > programmers- it's uniquely appropriate.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > How do you mean? I see this simplified to something like "programmers
> > should not be forced to learn things (about programming?) they don't
> > value"? Would you say that one of the goals for the instructor is to
> > demonstrate 'why' something is valuable that not all students may
> initially
> > understand? Or is this, too, some form of educational-violence?
> >
> >
> J: For one thing, I think these kids are often the smarter ones. And the
> smarter kids do better at a go-at-your-own pace. I think many times they
> are held back and bored by the system which HAS to be one-size-fits-all and
> cater to the lower common denominator. I'm saying the same pack instinct
> that puts nerds together and outcast from most other people at every
> school, is a good argument for creating a school tailored to the tastes and
> needs of nerds.
>
>
>
>
> > [John]
> > Again, programming is different. If you're good at it you can get a good
> > job. It doesn't matter if you have a degree or are self taught.
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > How would a prospective employer know you're good at it?
>
>
> J: That's an easy one. Have one good coder do the interview and ask some
> questions. And usually a programmer is hired on the basis of the work he's
> already done. His code IS his resume.
>
>
> > Believe me, I do not think 'degrees' in and of themselves prove a person
> > can do anything (one of the more recent 'techno' reforms is digital
> > badging, an idea built off of older competency-based models of
> education),
> > but if we eliminate degrees/grades, how do you suggest our skill(s) be
> > packaged so that an employer can see what we can do? Portfolios try to
> > address this, do you think these are better? What about certifications? I
> > see computer jobs all the time that advertised for people with so-and-so
> > certification. Would that go out with degrees?
> >
>
> As I said, I don't think all degrees are useless. I just think there are
> some people who don't need all that and could use a place of learning
> without the academic distractions of record keeping and grades. But I went
> and took college courses without paying attention to what grades I got or
> whether I got a degree. I made good money in construction (once upon a
> time... sob ) and didn't need an education for professional reasons but
> personal ones.
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>
>
> End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 98, Issue 18
> *******************************************
>
> 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
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list