[MD] 42

[Dan Glover]

Andre,

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Arlo to Dan:
>
>
> Finally, as DMB mentioned, Granger's ideas are exemplary here, and I'm not
> trying to skip over citing his work. In fact, I think Dewey brings a strong
> voice into what I personally feel is deep in the roots of the our
> educational dilemma; and that is we lack a coherent answer to the question
> "why do we educate?". What is the purpose of public education? What is the
> purpose of college? Interestingly, vocational and trade schools (in what I
> hope is taken in a Pirsigian sense, I'd include schools like the Julliard
> School in this category) often have the most articulate answer to this
> question.
>
> Andre:
> Hi Arlo, Dan, dmb and All:
> Educational questions are pertinent questions about purpose. I think that is
> well put Arlo. Through my own wanderings and wonderings around some parts of
> the globe I have been fortunate to have been exposed to a taste of four
> educational systems and their environments: the Dutch (pre-,primary,lower
> theoretical/technical)to Australian (high...theoretical/practical), Chinese
> (middle...as a teacher where I taught at a teachers college)and Dutch again
> (higher...theoretical/practical).
>
> The conversation has been interesting thus far and I am not sure whether I
> can add anything to its significance or pave a way for answering some of
> your questions...especially regarding purpose.
>
> I have two things in mind: a very general question of why are we here on
> earth? What is our purpose here?

Dan:
Good questions... some would say that either we must have some sort of
purpose here or we're just mindless automatons wandering around
bumping into stuff.

If however we define purpose as: The object toward which one strives
or for which something exists ... we come to see the question is
predicated upon the assumption that we as independent entities are
(somehow) put here on earth to strive toward the object(s) of our
desire, which are in turn dictated by our cultural mores.

>From Lila:
"Now when we come to the chemistry professor, and see him studying his
empirically gathered data, trying to figure out what it means, this
person makes more sense. He's not just some impartial visitor from
outer space looking in on all this with no purpose other than to
observe. Neither is he some static, molecular, objective, biological
machine, doing all this for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. We see
that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as
the subatomic forces had when they had first began to create him
billions of years ago. He's looking for information that will expand
the static patterns of evolution itself and give both greater
versatility and greater stability against hostile static forces of
nature. He may have personal motives such as "pure fun," that is, the
Dynamic Quality of his work. But when he applies for funds he will
normally and properly tie his request to some branch of humanity's
overall evolutionary purpose."

Dan comments:
So according to the MOQ, it seems our purpose is to become better.
Though we each have our own personal ways of accomplishing this goal
if we are to achieve it we must first look for it (educate ourselves
by gathering information which will lead to an expansion of static
quality values) before we can recognize our purpose is to give
humanity greater versatility and stability against the hostile forces
of nature.

>Andre:
> The second thing that mingles with this is Pirsig's variant on the Buddhist
> poem on page 406 of LILA:
> "While sustaining biological and social patterns
> Kill all intellectual patterns...and then follow Dynamic Quality and
> morality will be served"
>
> It appears to me that these lines refer to a non-dual perspective...the
> fusing of what Paul, in his paper terms an epistemological and an
> ontological context.
> Presently the vast majority of the purpose of education seems to lie not
> even close to either the epistemological nor the ontological context: it is
> presented as driven by the given: driven by economics, industry, private and
> public business corporations...their values incorporated and reinforced
> through ('personal') exposure to and internalization of values serving their
> vested interests (this is the ground stuff of mainstream education including
> parental) plus a vast network of public service type values to keep the
> system going...the political economy...the giant as Pirsig refers to it in
> LILA.
>
> I see this as an emphasis on static patterns of value. My own experience (as
> a beginning teacher) left very little room for reflection let alone talking
> about purpose (apart from satisfying the needs of the giant...which is 'the
> given'...the economic garbage). A strict adherence to policy was called for
> and the (politically determined) guidelines were changed every 1 or 2 years
> (depending on which party swung the scepter). There was no room for
> professional innovation, autonomy or adjustment. So very soon, realizing
> that certain prescribed methods simply did not work, one was told to simply
> follow policy...and to lower standards of academic achievement if it was
> seen that most students failed to pas exams. This of course in the context
> of a fair amount of money being available for the educational institution
> for every student who graduated.

Dan:
I've never been a teacher in the traditional classroom sense that you
describe. At the same time I did do a little coaching in Little League
baseball. You could say there was a strict adherence to policy there
too, mainly winning the game. However, with patience and with
perseverance I was able to effect small changes which in time might
(or might not) flow into a greater and a better way of coaching.

It has taken thirty years to even begin witnessing said changes,
however minor they may be. Still, the changes are there, though
perhaps not in a general and overall way that one might desire. For
that to take place, much more time and patience is required. I'm
guessing anything as entrenched as educational policy is much the
same. It isn't a problem any one of us can solve but we can each do a
small part in moving toward a solution.

>Andre:
> Currently there appears to be too much emphasis on this nowhere land
> (flatland). It is the 'sustaining (and incessantly improving) of biological
> and social patterns'...with variations/innovations occurring on the same old
> themes...and stamping these as 'creative'. The driving force of which, for
> sure, is DQ but received, guided, maintained and projected into the future
> by a commonly shared consciousness that is egocentric and
> narcissistic...just what the giant wants and feeds on (fooling everyone of
> course because the only winner is the giant and there really is no heaven
> above!).

Dan:
We have to work within the bounds of society, sure. Unless we're
prepared to live life off the grid, we'll always be part of the
culture we inhabit. Though that might sound bleak, it doesn't have to
be.

>Andre:
> This is the sq side of the equation.
>
> As I hinted there appears very little to no time (or energy) to address the
> other side of the equation...the DQ side. Times to reflect, ask question
> about purpose, about arete (and not just in an economic or social status
> sense). But not only reflect on static patterns. I mean it the way Pirsig
> argues...rta, dharma and karma (evolutionary garbage and the dumping of this
> garbage).
>
> Those moments when it is painfully obvious (and we see this every day on the
> TV news and hear it on the radio and other social media) what the results
> are in the clinging to the static patterns of the world and the role that
> current educational policy and practices play in the perpetuation of this
> state of affairs (plus of course the consequences when you don't).
>
> Moments to detach oneself from these static patterns (LILA p407). Perhaps
> ways should be found to build that right into the education system and not
> have it relegated to one's 'personal/private' meditation room, one's whim
> ...or whenever time and energy is found.
>
> What needs to be challenged and seen through is the ego driven,
> self-centered purpose of the giant in which we are all brought up and
> subjected to accept as God given. This (self)destructive, violent and
> aggressive consciousness needs to be replaced.

Dan:
The Giant is too big and too pervasive to challenge. Instead, if we
learn to see it for what it is--not a benevolent farmer kindly feeding
and caring for the animals but a behemoth stoking the fires of
hell--we might come to see ways of circumventing its power and turning
it to our own advantage.

>Andre:
> Love, kindness, compassion and a respect for silence are seen as weaklings
> in this chain. What a pity.
>
> I do not have the answers Arlo, Dan, dmb. It's a complex issue with many
> interested parties clashing over fundamentals and outcomes. I suppose to
> summarize I'd go for DQ/sq with a healthy and stimulating balance of the
> two. Stability on the one hand and freedom on the other. By joining hands we
> should be able to work things out. But that is a tough task as not everyone
> wants to join in.

Dan:
I suppose we all do what we can. Answers are a dime a dozen but
putting them into practice is a whole other story.

Thank you for your thoughts,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com