[MD] 42

[John Carl]

Arlo and David,


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:39 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Arlo said to dmb:
> This is a good point, but I think it reflects two purposes, which Paulo
> Freire describes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed as "Education either
> functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the
> younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about
> conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men
> and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to
> participate in the transformation of their world." For Freire, "maintaining
> civilization" would be the normalizing, conforming, assimilation of
> social-historical-cultural structures. The second purpose, reflected by
> your use of "free" and "liberated" is more concerned with enabling agency
> (overcoming oppression). I don't necessarily think these two purposes are
> antagonistic, but I do think they are not synonymous terms. We have an
> imbalance where are favoring the genetic transmission of structure, but
> doing so uncritically and and uncreatively.
>
>
> dmb says:
> I like the way he puts it. And I think you're right to say the two
> purposes - conformity and creativity - aren't necessarily enemies. There is
> a certain tension and the need for some kind of balancing act but I suppose
> they're both necessary. I mean, we can't effectively transform our world
> without first being integrated into it. In Pirsig's language, the cart of
> civilization can only be "pulled forward" by free people. It's sounds even
> better, I think, to say they creatively participate in the transformation
> of their world but the meaning is essentially the same.
>
>
> John:  I agree.  Rebels wouldn't have anything to kick against if there
weren't an existing structure.  But paradigm change can be slow.  Or
rather, it can happen fast but take centuries to get to the crisis point
where things happen fast.  So it seems we need room for rebels but a lot of
oppression they'll have to go through in order to get their ideas into
reality.  The Zuni brujo had cred with people because he'd suffered at the
hand of the authorities.  Whose to say the authorities weren't important
too, in this little drama?



>
> Arlo said:
>  Right [..people think of higher education levels as the means to a higher
> income.], and this reflects one of the most central crises in the education
> discourse. "Why?".... The larger metaphor of "capital" has subsumed
> education, we see it as an "investment", we demand that it "pays off". The
> "Church of Reason" becomes a Church of Career. Philosophy, which should be
> the starting point to all education, becomes a quaint elective often lost
> in a "jobs curriculum".  ....I think a strong argument could made that,
> along with Pirsig's abolishing grades, we abolish tuition. If the goal is
> 'maintain civilization' and critical, creative thinking, then this should
> an endeavor supported by society as a whole; from 'public' all the way
> through post-secondary doctoral work. At the same time, we need to (as a
> culture) articulate exactly what we want formal, public schooling to
> provide; an informed citizenry, a labor population, creative thinkers, and
> then work backwards into curriculum, as
>  sessment and pedagogy. We have to know what it is we want to do, before
> we can talk about good ways of doing it.
>
> dmb says:
> It's a frustrating situation because there is so much political resistance
> to exceedingly reasonable goals like the ones you name. Education has
> become a political football for the purposes religious indoctrination,
> free-market reforms, union busting and the overall conservative view that
> children should be molded, not educated. I mean, it's not that complicated.
> The progressive agenda says education is about teaching people HOW to think
> and the conservative agenda says education teaching us WHAT to think.



John:  The way you describe the conflict David is exactly along the lines
of my suggestion that you realize your opponent has his place too.  It's
our opponents who train our positions and if we like our positions then we
ought to be grateful to our opponents rather than despise them.    Also
demonization polarizes and makes change into a power struggle and
conservatives insist upon having all the guns so it's a losing strategy.
<shrug>


David:


> (The Jesus people sure do hate John Dewey. As they see it, he is a commie
> from hell.) In a Democracy, ignorance and stupidity are national security
> issues. And I can't help but think of Pirsig's descriptions of the clash
> between social and intellectual values.
>
>
>
I like Dewey AND Jesus so you never can tell.  But I'm different.  I'm like
Nietsche - the only true Christian was Christ.

And I believe we've all fallen prey to that same bug-a-boo of demonizing
opposition.  3rd level and 4th do often conflict, but they are intricately
interwoven and it might be more accurately analogized as a dance, rather
than a fight.


But maybe its just that I've been arguing with just  Bo too long.

Yours,

John