postmodern classroom
Walpole
suggestions would be appreciated.
Julie
Erik A. Mattila
I have a suggestion. Go to your video store and rent Richard Elfman's
"Forbidden Zone." (Oingo Boingo Soundtrack) The classroom depicted in
this movie is what I would call post-modern. For more info see:
http://www.richardelfman.com/forbiddenzone/
Erik Mattila
James Whitehead
<wal...@rof.net> writes
>I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
>suggestions would be appreciated.
Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to
Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation and
the need to learn in order to integrate into modern mass-production - so
i cant see how you could have a post-modern classroom.
--
James Whitehead
MrGoodSalt
> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
suggestions would be appreciated.
My suggestion is DO NOT create a postmodern classroom.
The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it, is that
objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is true (and I don't
believe it is) then there is no reason to have a classroom in the first place.
You might be interested in some of the following books about postmodernism:
"The Death of Truth" by McCallum.
"A Primer On Postmodernism" by Grenz.
"The New Tolerance" by McDowell and Hostetler.
An excellent book that compares and contrasts worldviews in general (including
postmodernism) is:
"The Universe Next Door: A Catalog of Wordviews" by James Sire.
Here is perhaps a better reason not to create a postmodern classroom:
"Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: And What We Can Do About It" (1992)
William Kilpatrick. Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN#: 0-671-87073-4
p. 93-94
"As a parent, which of the two models below would you prefer the school to
use:"
"A) The first approach encourages students to develop their own values and
value systems. This approach relies on presenting the students with provocative
ethical dilemmas and encouraging open discussion and exchange of opinion. The
ground rule for discussion is that there are no right or wrong answers. Each
student must decide for himself/herself what is right or wrong. Students are
encouraged to be nonjudgmental about values that differ from their own."
"B) The second approach involves a conscious effort to teach specific virtues
and character traits such as courage, justice, self-control, honesty,
responsibility, charity, obedience to lawful authority, etc. These concepts are
introduced and explained and then illustrated by memorable examples from
history, literature, and current events. The teacher expresses a strong belief
in the importance of these virtues and encourages his/her students to practice
them in their own lives."
"The vast majority of parents will choose B - the character education option.
But when I ask groups of teachers and teachers-in-training which of the two
models they would choose to teach, they invariable prefer model A. Many
teachers say they would not use the second approach under any circumstances."
I think your desire to help students is a beautiful thing. But you must beware
the social engineering/communist influence of much of educational theory. Back
in the early 1900's the communists overwhelmed the U.S. school/university
system with the intent of spreading their ideas in order to stimulate the
glorious "workers revolution".
Unfortunately, communism sucks and has done nothing but create human misery
everywhere it has been tried. However, the communists in America are still
nestled safely in academia, the press, and other places where they continue to
espouse their perspective detached from the reality of it's application. If you
want to know how bad an idea Communism really is check out the book "The Black
Book of Communism".
There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
approach:
1) What is the nature of truth?
2) What is the nature of man?
Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that goodness
takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
If you want to help your students, try character option B described above and
consider the following book:
The Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Cardinal Virtues (1902) James Stalker.
NavPress: Colorado Springs, CO. ISBN: 1-57683-092-6
It only costs $6.00 on Amazon.com but it is an excellent summary of the good
and bad of human nature. Here is a sample about the virtue of wisdom:
"Wisdom is the foremost of the virtues. It is the lamp bearer showing the way
to the rest. Its principal business is to identify the goal to which they
should all strive, and the point to which the whole course of life should
tend."
"Perhaps it might be said of many that they have no ideal. And this is their
condemnation. They have no object in life; they have never reflected why they
are alive; their course is determined, not by their own choice, but by the
blind forces of appetite within and of conventionality without. Such may truely
be said to be dead while they live; for surely in such a vast and perilous
enterprise as the voyage of life the first duty of everyone who claims to be
human is to be aware where he or she is going. But from another point of view,
it may be said that every human being has a personal ideal, whether aware of it
or not. In every mind, consciously or unconsciously, there forms itself by
degrees some supreme desire to which the thoughts are ever tending and toward
the attainment of which the endeavors are ever set."
"...the essential thing is that we should know and avow what we intend to be
and to do in this world, and in which port we intend to arrive when the voyage
is finished. This is wisdom."
" 'What is the chief end of man?' ... 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and to
enjoy Him forever.' "
Two other excellent books that will help you understand the nature of both
truth and man are:
The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Reflections on Human
Psychology. (1997) Solomon Schimmel. Oxford University Press: New York. ISBN:
0-19-511945-2
The Seven Deadly Sins Today. (1978) Henry Fairlie. University of Notre Dame
Press: Notre Dame. ISBN: 0-268-01698-4
I hope this helps...
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Good Christian books listed and described at:
http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
Ned Ludd
>>> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom.
>>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
James:
>> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to
>> Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation
>> and the need to learn in order to integrate into modern
>> mass-production - so i cant see how you could have a post-modern
>> classroom.
MrGoodSalt:
> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it,
> is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is
> true (and I don't believe it is) then there is no reason to have a
> classroom in the first place.
>
Here's what you need:
1. No designated place.
2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
3. No syllabus.
4. No structure.
5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
7. No scheduled events.
8. No criteria for advancement.
...
Is this starting to sound familiar?
Ned
John Timothy Hall
"The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel."
Walpole
--
ale...@my-deja.com
Release those students into the room, and tell them to locate where the
stink of humanist enlightenment is coming from...
Winner gets a black turtleneck sweater - the statutory pomo gear.
Joyce ;)~~~
In article <t01u0vb...@corp.supernews.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simon Best
>
> "Walpole" wal...@rof.net wrote:
> > I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
> > suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> My suggestion is DO NOT create a postmodern classroom.
>
> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it, is that
> objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is true (and I don't
> believe it is) then there is no reason to have a classroom in the first
> place.
That strikes me as a bit simplistic. If there is no 'objective external
truth', how can we be certain that 'there is no reason to have a
classroom'?
> You might be interested in some of the following books about postmodernism:
>
[...]
>
> Here is perhaps a better reason not to create a postmodern classroom:
>
> "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: And What We Can Do About It" (1992)
> William Kilpatrick. Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN#: 0-671-87073-4
>
> p. 93-94
>
> "As a parent, which of the two models below would you prefer the school to
> use:"
>
> "A) The first approach encourages students to develop their own values and
> value systems. This approach relies on presenting the students with
> provocative ethical dilemmas and encouraging open discussion and exchange of
> opinion. The ground rule for discussion is that there are no right or wrong
> answers. Each student must decide for himself/herself what is right or wrong.
> Students are encouraged to be nonjudgmental about values that differ from
> their own."
>
> "B) The second approach involves a conscious effort to teach specific virtues
> and character traits such as courage, justice, self-control, honesty,
> responsibility, charity, obedience to lawful authority, etc. These concepts
> are introduced and explained and then illustrated by memorable examples from
> history, literature, and current events. The teacher expresses a strong
> belief in the importance of these virtues and encourages his/her students to
> practice them in their own lives."
>
> "The vast majority of parents will choose B - the character education option.
> But when I ask groups of teachers and teachers-in-training which of the two
> models they would choose to teach, they invariable prefer model A. Many
> teachers say they would not use the second approach under any circumstances."
Terrible! That suggests there are only two alternatives, and that the
choice has to be made only between those particular two. It comes
across to me more as ideological propaganda than genuine concern for the
good of the young.
> I think your desire to help students is a beautiful thing. But you must
> beware the social engineering/communist influence of much of educational
> theory. Back in the early 1900's the communists overwhelmed the U.S.
> school/university system with the intent of spreading their ideas in order to
> stimulate the glorious "workers revolution".
>
> Unfortunately, communism sucks and has done nothing but create human misery
> everywhere it has been tried.
The early Christians practiced a form of communism.
> However, the communists in America are still nestled safely in academia, the
> press, and other places where they continue to espouse their perspective
> detached from the reality of it's application. If you want to know how bad an
> idea Communism really is check out the book "The Black Book of Communism".
Typing as a bloke in Britain (for that is what I am), this stuff you're
spouting about communism comes across as American right-wing paranoia...
> There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
> approach:
>
> 1) What is the nature of truth?
> 2) What is the nature of man?
Two very worthwhile questions, I think...
> Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
> libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
Far too simplistic and sweeping!
> Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that
> goodness takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
alternatives worth even mentioning?
> If you want to help your students, try character option B described above and
> consider the following book:
>
[...]
>
> I hope this helps...
>
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
> Good Christian books listed and described at:
> http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
I notice you call yourself 'MrGoodSalt'.
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Personal: bars...@earthling.net
Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that work?
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best wrote:
>
> > Terrible! That suggests there are only two alternatives, and that the
> > choice has to be made only between those particular two. It comes
> > across to me more as ideological propaganda than genuine concern for the
> > good of the young.
>
> State quasi-ideology, I think. The ends always justify the means, so I will
> incarcerate you to save you from totalitarianism. Can you imagine what the
> end of the Cold War has meant for those who could only function inside of its
> polarity.
Must be terrible for them.
[...]
> > > Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
> > > libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
> >
> > Far too simplistic and sweeping!
>
> Yet appropo to the non-postmodern classroom that is being constructed here.
Good point.
> > > Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that
> > > goodness takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
>
> See - there's the core curriculum. Truth is Christian and man's nature is
> sin. Now we only need to write the course syllabi.
Should there not be a bit about 'How we know Christianity is the
truth'? Or might that dangerously prompt the pupils to actually think
about such issues?
[...]
> > I notice you call yourself 'MrGoodSalt'.
> >
> > Simon
>
> On his web site also. How curious. Preaching the gospel behind a pseudonym.
> I thought Christians were a proud people. It gives a new dimention to
> Christian Martyrdom - Martyrdom by Proxie - delightfully post-modern.
>
> Erik Mattila
From my Christian upbringing and background, I understood that
Christians were supposed to be humble...
Simon Best
>
> mrgoodsalt wrote:
> >> There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
> >> approach:
>
> >> 1) What is the nature of truth?
> >> 2) What is the nature of man?
>
> > Two very worthwhile questions, I think...
>
> >> Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
> >> libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
>
> > Far too simplistic and sweeping!
>
> >> Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that
> >> goodness takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
>
> > Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
> > alternatives worth even mentioning?
>
> two:
> 1) truth, 2) not truth.
Doesn't really answer my question. What if the truth is one of the many
alternatives you seem to have somewhat ignored?
Obviously, you regard Christianity as the truth. But, tell me if you
can:
1. How do you know Christianity is the truth? (That's one you're
hoping to get asked so that you can do your witnessing bit.)
2. How can the rest of us know as well? (That's another one you're
hoping to get asked.)
James Whitehead
Hamburger Anus Death <hypebomb...@autonomous.org> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> postulated:
i only postulated some of this... and non of a) or b) - especially b)
>
>> >"As a parent, which of the two models below would you prefer the school to
>> >use:"
>> >
>> >"A) The first approach encourages students to develop their own values and
>> >value systems. This approach relies on presenting the students with
>provocative
>> >ethical dilemmas and encouraging open discussion and exchange of opinion.
>The
>> >ground rule for discussion is that there are no right or wrong answers. Each
>> >student must decide for himself/herself what is right or wrong. Students are
>> >encouraged to be nonjudgmental about values that differ from their own."
>> >
>> >"B) The second approach involves a conscious effort to teach specific
>virtues
>> >and character traits such as courage, justice, self-control, honesty,
>> >responsibility, charity, obedience to lawful authority, etc. These concepts
>are
>> >introduced and explained and then illustrated by memorable examples from
>> >history, literature, and current events. The teacher expresses a strong
>belief
>> >in the importance of these virtues and encourages his/her students to
>practice
>> >them in their own lives."
>> >
>> >"The vast majority of parents will choose B - the character education
>option.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Interesting that example B is explicitly what is de rigour in
>> totalitarian societies - it would be typical of many extreme right wing
>> - Nazi approaches to education, left wing Stalinist, fundamental
>> Islamic, Christian, and fringe groups. Contrast this to the use of open
>> ended deliberately ambiguous parables (or dialogues) which were set to
>> provoke thought in the listener, challenge conventional thinking and
>> blind prejudice... erm... see the above for practitioners of this
>> approach...
>
>apart from the poster's tragic misrepresentation of postmodernism through
>misunderstanding and oversimplification, its a very common confusion of
>goals with methods.
oh dam if po-mo cant be misunderstood and oversimplified then hell its
not much different to modernity - you say postmodernism is merely a
description of the state of the world as it is - well the world is very
much oversimplified and misunderstood imo, which follows that an
oversimplified and misunderstood idea of po-mo is spot on?
>
>it is probably desirable for children to grow up to learn B (goal).
>However if you think children asorb such lessons by being sat in a
>classroom and 'instructed' in said virtues you are badly mistaken.
>children can think and learn for themselves. the majority will learn by
>their own methods in their own time the standards that society expects of
>them. and these standards they learn by your EXAMPLE not by your preaching
>what is 'good'. "we all become our parents" is practially a truism. note
>it doesn't say "we all become what our parents tell us to become".
>anyway, postmodernism to me is merely a description about the state of the
>world AS IT IS, not a proscription as to how it SHOULD be.
>
i quite agree...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<mrgoo...@aol.com> writes
>The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it, is that
>objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is true (and I don't
>believe it is) then there is no reason to have a classroom in the first place.
This might be just an appearance - someone with "The objective external
truth" would see things that way perhaps.
>
>You might be interested in some of the following books about postmodernism:
>
>"The Death of Truth" by McCallum.
>"A Primer On Postmodernism" by Grenz.
>"The New Tolerance" by McDowell and Hostetler.
Will there ever be an alternative to reading books! - or will we return
to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
>
>An excellent book that compares and contrasts worldviews in general (including
>postmodernism) is:
The best book I ever saw had the title a (my addition) "Narrow Feint" it
was an exercise book of blank ruled pages...
Interesting that example B is explicitly what is de rigour in
totalitarian societies - it would be typical of many extreme right wing
- Nazi approaches to education, left wing Stalinist, fundamental
Islamic, Christian, and fringe groups. Contrast this to the use of open
ended deliberately ambiguous parables (or dialogues) which were set to
provoke thought in the listener, challenge conventional thinking and
blind prejudice... erm... see the above for practitioners of this
approach...
>
>There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
>approach:
>
>1) What is the nature of truth?
>2) What is the nature of man?
How about what does this particular child need?
>
>Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
>libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
>
>Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that goodness
>takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
Well some Christians say this but not all, many Christians put God above
truth, after all love is blind... and although in the beginning there
was the word, god so loved the world that he sent his only son...
also you shouldn't perhaps use "sin" without explaining its technical
use within Christianity. After all original sin which a new born baby is
born with is not something the poor child is responsible for, unless
your into karma. As for the goodness etc. only god is good and god never
needed to practice.
>
>If you want to help your students, try character option B described above and
>consider the following book:
>
>The Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Cardinal Virtues (1902) James Stalker.
>NavPress: Colorado Springs, CO. ISBN: 1-57683-092-6
>
>It only costs $6.00 on Amazon.com but it is an excellent summary of the good
>and bad of human nature. Here is a sample about the virtue of wisdom:
>
>"Wisdom is the foremost of the virtues. It is the lamp bearer showing the way
>to the rest.
Your not a fool for Christ then? - and given such a lamp have no need
for the light of the world....
>Its principal business is to identify the goal to which they
>should all strive, and the point to which the whole course of life should
>tend."
alternatively " do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry
about itself"
>
>"Perhaps it might be said of many that they have no ideal. And this is their
>condemnation. They have no object in life; they have never reflected why they
>are alive; their course is determined, not by their own choice, but by the
>blind forces of appetite within and of conventionality without. Such may truely
>be said to be dead while they live; for surely in such a vast and perilous
>enterprise as the voyage of life the first duty of everyone who claims to be
>human is to be aware where he or she is going. But from another point of view,
>it may be said that every human being has a personal ideal, whether aware of it
>or not. In every mind, consciously or unconsciously, there forms itself by
>degrees some supreme desire to which the thoughts are ever tending and toward
>the attainment of which the endeavors are ever set."
"At that time Jesus said , " praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned,
and revealed them to little children.... take my yoke upon you and learn
from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for
your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden light."
>
>"...the essential thing is that we should know and avow what we intend to be
>and to do in this world, and in which port we intend to arrive when the voyage
>is finished. This is wisdom."
>
>" 'What is the chief end of man?' ... 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and to
>enjoy Him forever.' "
>
>Two other excellent books that will help you understand the nature of both
>truth and man are:
>
>The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Reflections on Human
>Psychology. (1997) Solomon Schimmel. Oxford University Press: New York. ISBN:
>0-19-511945-2
>
>The Seven Deadly Sins Today. (1978) Henry Fairlie. University of Notre Dame
>Press: Notre Dame. ISBN: 0-268-01698-4
>
>I hope this helps...
>
>
>
>"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry" Matthew 6:25
--
James Whitehead
Erik A. Mattila
> Terrible! That suggests there are only two alternatives, and that the
> choice has to be made only between those particular two. It comes
> across to me more as ideological propaganda than genuine concern for the
> good of the young.
Good call, Simon. This post is a rare survival of the old National Security State
quasi-ideology, I think. The ends always justify the means, so I will incarcerate
you to save you from totalitarianism. Can you imagine what the end of the Cold
War has meant for those who could only function inside of its polarity.
> > I think your desire to help students is a beautiful thing. But you must
> > beware the social engineering/communist influence of much of educational
> > theory. Back in the early 1900's the communists overwhelmed the U.S.
> > school/university system with the intent of spreading their ideas in order to
> > stimulate the glorious "workers revolution".
> >
> > Unfortunately, communism sucks and has done nothing but create human misery
> > everywhere it has been tried.
>
> The early Christians practiced a form of communism.
>
> > However, the communists in America are still nestled safely in academia, the
> > press, and other places where they continue to espouse their perspective
> > detached from the reality of it's application. If you want to know how bad an
> > idea Communism really is check out the book "The Black Book of Communism".
>
> Typing as a bloke in Britain (for that is what I am), this stuff you're
> spouting about communism comes across as American right-wing paranoia...
No, this guy is one of those transmedium spirit channels whose being mentally
sodomized by Joe MacArthy's wraith. You can ward these creatures off by
brandishing a copy of "Das Kapital" in their face. Works every time.
> > There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
> > approach:
> >
> > 1) What is the nature of truth?
> > 2) What is the nature of man?
>
> Two very worthwhile questions, I think...
> > Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
> > libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
>
> Far too simplistic and sweeping!
Yet appropo to the non-postmodern classroom that is being constructed here.
> > Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that
> > goodness takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
See - there's the core curriculum. Truth is Christian and man's nature is sin.
Now we only need to write the course syllabi.
> Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
> alternatives worth even mentioning?
>
> > If you want to help your students, try character option B described above and
> > consider the following book:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > I hope this helps...
> >
> > "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
> > Good Christian books listed and described at:
> > http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
>
> I notice you call yourself 'MrGoodSalt'.
>
> Simon
On his web site also. How curious. Preaching the gospel behind a pseudonym. I
MrGoodSalt
>>>> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
suggestions would be appreciated.
James:
>>> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to Plato's
Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation and the need to
learn in order to integrate into modern mass-production - so i cant see how you
could have a post-modern classroom.
MrGoodSalt:
>> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it,
is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is true (and I
don't believe it is) then there is no reason to have a classroom in the first
place.
"Ned Ludd" ned...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Here's what you need:
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
>...
> Is this starting to sound familiar?
You forgot one thing:
9. An invoice for services not rendered.
MrGoodSalt
>> There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
approach:
>> 1) What is the nature of truth?
>> 2) What is the nature of man?
Simon Best bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> Two very worthwhile questions, I think...
>> Postmodernism says truth does not exist, and it tends to default to the
libertopian assumption that the nature of man is inherently good.
> Far too simplistic and sweeping!
>> Christianity says that truth does exist, and that man is sinful - that
goodness takes discipline, practice, and vigilence.
> Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
alternatives worth even mentioning?
There are plenty of other perspectives. However, ultimately there are only two:
1) truth, 2) not truth.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Hamburger Anus Death
> >"As a parent, which of the two models below would you prefer the school to
> >use:"
> >
> >"A) The first approach encourages students to develop their own values and
> >value systems. This approach relies on presenting the students with provocative
> >ethical dilemmas and encouraging open discussion and exchange of opinion. The
> >ground rule for discussion is that there are no right or wrong answers. Each
> >student must decide for himself/herself what is right or wrong. Students are
> >encouraged to be nonjudgmental about values that differ from their own."
> >
> >"B) The second approach involves a conscious effort to teach specific virtues
> >and character traits such as courage, justice, self-control, honesty,
> >responsibility, charity, obedience to lawful authority, etc. These concepts are
> >introduced and explained and then illustrated by memorable examples from
> >history, literature, and current events. The teacher expresses a strong belief
> >in the importance of these virtues and encourages his/her students to practice
> >them in their own lives."
> >
> >"The vast majority of parents will choose B - the character education option.
[ ... ]
> Interesting that example B is explicitly what is de rigour in
> totalitarian societies - it would be typical of many extreme right wing
> - Nazi approaches to education, left wing Stalinist, fundamental
> Islamic, Christian, and fringe groups. Contrast this to the use of open
> ended deliberately ambiguous parables (or dialogues) which were set to
> provoke thought in the listener, challenge conventional thinking and
> blind prejudice... erm... see the above for practitioners of this
> approach...
apart from the poster's tragic misrepresentation of postmodernism through
misunderstanding and oversimplification, its a very common confusion of
goals with methods.
it is probably desirable for children to grow up to learn B (goal).
However if you think children asorb such lessons by being sat in a
classroom and 'instructed' in said virtues you are badly mistaken.
children can think and learn for themselves. the majority will learn by
their own methods in their own time the standards that society expects of
them. and these standards they learn by your EXAMPLE not by your preaching
what is 'good'. "we all become our parents" is practially a truism. note
it doesn't say "we all become what our parents tell us to become".
anyway, postmodernism to me is merely a description about the state of the
world AS IT IS, not a proscription as to how it SHOULD be.
h.
Hamburger Anus Death
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
no, i'm afraid you have misquoted, you SHOULD have said;
"Arbeit Mach Frei"
--
Hamburger A. Death
++++++++++++++++++
Two Minute Hate, Everlasting.
Simon Best
>
> In article <20001102062111...@ng-bj1.aol.com>, MrGoodSalt
> <mrgoo...@aol.com> writes
> >You might be interested in some of the following books about postmodernism:
> >
> >"The Death of Truth" by McCallum.
> >"A Primer On Postmodernism" by Grenz.
> >"The New Tolerance" by McDowell and Hostetler.
>
> Will there ever be an alternative to reading books! - or will we return
> to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
> dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
I think we are already returning to those good ol' days...
[...]
> The best book I ever saw had the title a (my addition) "Narrow Feint" it
> was an exercise book of blank ruled pages...
Nah, not for me. A4 narrow feint refill pads are my preference, and
preferably the cheaper stuff.
[...]
> Interesting that example B is explicitly what is de rigour in
> totalitarian societies - it would be typical of many extreme right wing
> - Nazi approaches to education, left wing Stalinist, fundamental
> Islamic, Christian, and fringe groups. Contrast this to the use of open
> ended deliberately ambiguous parables (or dialogues) which were set to
> provoke thought in the listener, challenge conventional thinking and
> blind prejudice... erm... see the above for practitioners of this
> approach...
Good point.
> >There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
> >approach:
> >
> >1) What is the nature of truth?
> >2) What is the nature of man?
>
> How about what does this particular child need?
Too easy. The child needs salvation, and salvation is being set free
from sin, and it's the truth that'll set the child free...
[...]
> --
> James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> Will there ever be an alternative to reading books! - or will we return
>> to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
>> dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
>
>I think we are already returning to those good ol' days...
>
>[...]
>> The best book I ever saw had the title a (my addition) "Narrow Feint" it
>> was an exercise book of blank ruled pages...
>
>Nah, not for me. A4 narrow feint refill pads are my preference, and
>preferably the cheaper stuff.
If you talk A4 our American friends wont understand - they still use
imperial sizes - of which my favourite was double elephant...
>[...]
>> Interesting that example B is explicitly what is de rigour in
>> totalitarian societies - it would be typical of many extreme right wing
>> - Nazi approaches to education, left wing Stalinist, fundamental
>> Islamic, Christian, and fringe groups. Contrast this to the use of open
>> ended deliberately ambiguous parables (or dialogues) which were set to
>> provoke thought in the listener, challenge conventional thinking and
>> blind prejudice... erm... see the above for practitioners of this
>> approach...
>
>Good point.
>
>> >There are two fundamental questions which ultimately determine educational
>> >approach:
>> >
>> >1) What is the nature of truth?
>> >2) What is the nature of man?
>>
>> How about what does this particular child need?
>
>Too easy. The child needs salvation, and salvation is being set free
>from sin, and it's the truth that'll set the child free...
>
Lets maintain that Salvation has already been accomplished - -its a
fairly traditional position within Christianity, its was the nature of
salvation - freely given that makes it so attractive -
--
James Whitehead
MrGoodSalt
>>> Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
alternatives worth even mentioning?
mrgoodsalt wrote:
>> There are plenty of other perspectives. However, ultimately there are only
two: 1) truth, 2) not truth.
> Doesn't really answer my question. What if the truth is one of the many
alternatives you seem to have somewhat ignored?
> Obviously, you regard Christianity as the truth. But, tell me if you
can:
> 1. How do you know Christianity is the truth? (That's one you're
hoping to get asked so that you can do your witnessing bit.)
> 2. How can the rest of us know as well? (That's another one you're
hoping to get asked.)
Try reading the following book, or any of the others listed at my website:
Ready with An Answer: For the tough questions about God. (1997) John Ankerberg
and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN: 1-56507-618-4
BEGINNING OF QUOTE
A Note from the Authors
Almost everyone is searching for something beyond themselves to give their
lives meaning. However inadequately, many people are searching for the truth.
Indeed, there probably isn't a person alive who wouldn't like to know the
truth, if that were possible.
Despite the religious, political, moral and philosophical confusions of the
modern age, despite the penchant to make personal preference one's truth,
people know intuitively there is more to life and they secretly yearn for it.
We can see indications of this all around us, in cinema, art, literature,
science, philosophy, politics, and just about every other realm of human
endeavor.
That is why we have written this book - to help people find the truth. Of
course, sometimes the truth is hard to take. But of all things in life, knowing
the truth is surely one of the most satisfying. Knowing the truth means knowing
that what you believe is absolutely true, and not just true for you alone, but
for everybody else as well. Not just true for now, but true forever. That's the
truth we are searching for, and that's the truth we are talking about in this
book.
This book is written both for Christians to help strengthen their faith and
non-Christians to help persuade them that Christianity is the truth.
Naturally, there are relativists who deny truth exists. But what if they are
wrong? "A philosophy that denies the possibility of truth is a philosophy that
denies its own truth-claims. No one should take it seriously."
This book is designed to take the reader through a progression of logical
arguments that we hope will cause him or her to conclude there is a truth and
that it can both be known and experienced. What makes the endeavor a bit easier
is that in the end, there are only two options for explaining our existence:
the natural or the supernatural.
First, there is the supernatural or religious explanation. Is it reasonable to
believe that the universe was created by an infinite God? Second, there is the
natural or evolutionary explanation. Is it more reasonable to believe the
universe arose by chance from nothing, as modern science claims? Interestingly
enough, even the natural explanation is a religious one, tantamount to
requiring belief in the miraculous. Either way we are forced into the realm of
the religious. Further, if a great deal of scientific evidence rules out a
naturalistic explanation for origins, we have little choice. By default we are
automatically required to enter the realm of religious truth claims, at least
if we want to know the truth about who we are. And who isn't at least a little
bit curious?
The difficulty is that all religions claim to be the truth (even naturalistic
ones). Of course, not all religions can be equally true. All might be false, or
one might be true, but all cannot be absolutely true since they all clearly
contradict one another. Indeed, it is somewhat startling that millions of
people today claim that all religions are true. Everyone knows better. And if
all religions aren't true, either all are false or one is true. There are no
other options.
If there is one true God, it is logical to assume there is one true religion.
The purpose of this book is to see just how clearly the evidence leads us to
conclude that there is only one true God and only one religion that is fully
true.
If you really want to examine the case for knowing the truth, you can't afford
to miss this book. Like it or not, we all live out our lives more or less
consistently with what we think is true. And, depending on what we believe is
true, this has major implications for each of our lives. Further, we all die.
To live our lives apart from the truth isn't healthy, but to die without the
truth is a tragedy.
So, if you are currently of a naturalistic persuasion, and you already believe
in one kind of miracle, perhaps it wouldn't hurt you to consider another kind
of miracle along the way. If you are currently of a religious persuasion,
perhaps it wouldn't hurt you to examine your beliefs more critically.
So where do we begin our search for the truth? Although we will discuss other
religions and philosophies, our emphasis in this book will be to examine the
evidence for the truth of biblical Christianity.
Why?
Simply because this is the most logical starting point. There is little need to
examine 500 different religions in A to Z fashion (even if that were possible),
when there is one religion that stands out from all the others in almost every
respect.
Christianity is the only religion that is simultaneously most likely to be true
and, given its claims, the easiest to disprove if false. Given this, there is
no better place to begin.
If biblical Christianity proves true, then we have found the truth.
If it proves false, then the search is still on…
If nothing else, we hope this book will be a challenge to you personally to
spend some time in the most important endeavor in life.
There is no greater adventure.
END OF QUOTE
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> >>> Again, only two alternatives. So, I must ask, why are there no other
> >>> alternatives worth even mentioning?
>
> mrgoodsalt wrote:
> >> There are plenty of other perspectives. However, ultimately there are only
> >> two: 1) truth, 2) not truth.
>
> > Doesn't really answer my question. What if the truth is one of the many
> > alternatives you seem to have somewhat ignored?
>
> > Obviously, you regard Christianity as the truth. But, tell me if you
> > can:
>
> > 1. How do you know Christianity is the truth? (That's one you're
> > hoping to get asked so that you can do your witnessing bit.)
>
> > 2. How can the rest of us know as well? (That's another one you're
> > hoping to get asked.)
>
> Try reading the following book, or any of the others listed at my website:
>
> Ready with An Answer: For the tough questions about God. (1997) John
> Ankerberg and John Weldon. Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, OR. ISBN:
> 1-56507-618-4
>
> BEGINNING OF QUOTE
> A Note from the Authors
>
>
> Naturally, there are relativists who deny truth exists. But what if they are
> wrong? "A philosophy that denies the possibility of truth is a philosophy
> that denies its own truth-claims. No one should take it seriously."
There's a problem here. The problem is, if truth does not really exist,
then rationalism cannot be relied upon. If rationalism cannot be relied
upon, rational conclusions drawn from obvious contradictions are
unsafe. Of course, what I'm concluding is somewhat contradictory with
itself, and with the way in which I'm reaching my conclusion here. But,
if rationalism is unreliable, it cannot reliably be concluded from my
self contradiction that I must therefore be wrong in this.
In short (and to put it another way), that paragraph from the authors'
note in the book relies upon a tautology of reasoning.
If the authors are making such a howler in opposing relativism, I doubt
the book is worth reading.
> This book is designed to take the reader through a progression of logical
> arguments
And, indeed, rationalism is being assumed true in this book. But, of
course, such assumption is no good. Anyway...
> that we hope will cause him or her to conclude there is a truth and
> that it can both be known and experienced. What makes the endeavor a bit
> easier is that in the end, there are only two options for explaining our
> existence: the natural or the supernatural.
>
> First, there is the supernatural or religious explanation. Is it reasonable
> to believe that the universe was created by an infinite God?
An infinite God... Would that be the kind of God totally unlimited in
any way at all what so ever, in any sense at all, no matter what? A God
who can create true contradiction? Or is that beyond that infinite
God's ability?...
> Second, there is the natural or evolutionary explanation. Is it more
> reasonable to believe the universe arose by chance from nothing, as modern
> science claims?
Erm, modern science questions the validity of the question as presented
there. It's a matter of scope, and whether or not the question exceeds
its own context. (Basically, the question seeks to extend time beyond
the earliest moment, like trying to go north of the north pole, by
referring to some previous 'nothing' as being what the universe would
come from.) The authors seem to be showing some ignorance of the
philosophical problems of the question they've asked.
> Interestingly enough, even the natural explanation is a religious one,
> tantamount to requiring belief in the miraculous. Either way we are forced
> into the realm of the religious. Further, if a great deal of scientific
> evidence rules out a naturalistic explanation for origins, we have little
> choice. By default we are automatically required to enter the realm of
> religious truth claims, at least if we want to know the truth about who we
> are. And who isn't at least a little bit curious?
>
> The difficulty is that all religions claim to be the truth (even naturalistic
> ones). Of course, not all religions can be equally true. All might be false,
> or one might be true, but all cannot be absolutely true since they all
> clearly contradict one another. Indeed, it is somewhat startling that
> millions of people today claim that all religions are true. Everyone knows
> better. And if all religions aren't true, either all are false or one is
> true. There are no other options.
No good. It again assumes the truth and reliability of rationalism, of
logic.
> If there is one true God, it is logical to assume there is one true religion.
If God is bound by logic, that is. Of course, that would then surely
not leave God as truly, absolutely, and totally supreme. If God is
supreme over all, then God cannot be assumed to be constrained by logic,
surely? Putting it as an intriguing question: Is God not capable of
creating a whole creation such that many different, contradictory
religions are all true? Of is it beyond God's power?
> The purpose of this book is to see just how clearly the evidence leads us to
> conclude that there is only one true God and only one religion that is fully
> true.
Yet it's obvious from this excerpt that the authors have started with a
disputed assumption: the assumption that logic is reliable.
[...(Rest of blurb snipped.)...]
>
> There is no greater adventure.
> END OF QUOTE
>
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
> Good Christian books listed and described at:
> http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
So, my question now is (and it doesn't look like your recommended book
bothers to do anything more than assume it):
How can we know that rationalism, that logic, that human reasoning, are
reliable?
Simon Best
>
> In article <3A0352E7...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >James Whitehead wrote:
> >>
> >> to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
> >> dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
> >
> >I think we are already returning to those good ol' days...
> >
Though I believe there is a place for books, too. After all, books were
pretty useful in how we ended up knowing about those dialogues...
> >[...]
> >> The best book I ever saw had the title a (my addition) "Narrow Feint" it
> >> was an exercise book of blank ruled pages...
> >
> >Nah, not for me. A4 narrow feint refill pads are my preference, and
> >preferably the cheaper stuff.
>
> If you talk A4 our American friends wont understand - they still use
> imperial sizes - of which my favourite was double elephant...
I think they use corrupted Imperial measurements (their gallon's smaller
than ours, for example). But I take your point:
A4 is 8.27" by 11.69".
[...]
> >Too easy. The child needs salvation, and salvation is being set free
> >from sin, and it's the truth that'll set the child free...
>
> Lets maintain that Salvation has already been accomplished - -its a
> fairly traditional position within Christianity, its was the nature of
> salvation - freely given that makes it so attractive -
>
> --
> James Whitehead
But then there's the issue of whether or not the gift of salvation is
accepted, and whether or not that gift is known about in order to be
accepted, hence Christian witness and evangelism (hence MrGoodSalt's
participation here, it seems).
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>How can we know that rationalism, that logic, that human reasoning, are
>reliable?
in that there are in mathematics propositions which are both true and
un-proveable. Or some such uncertainty. There are other variations of
this proof.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A0352E7...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
>> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
>> >James Whitehead wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Will there ever be an alternative to reading books! - or will we return
>> >> to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
>> >> dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
>> >
>> >I think we are already returning to those good ol' days...
>> >
>> great! We can let the homeless live in the libraries ...
>
>Though I believe there is a place for books, too. After all, books were
>pretty useful in how we ended up knowing about those dialogues...
Perhaps - however reading about other thinkers is not thinking, it might
be useful to a progressive society to arrive at a world view by standing
on the shoulders of giants but an alternative is to work things out for
ourselves.
>
>> >[...]
>> >> The best book I ever saw had the title a (my addition) "Narrow Feint" it
>> >> was an exercise book of blank ruled pages...
>> >
>> >Nah, not for me. A4 narrow feint refill pads are my preference, and
>> >preferably the cheaper stuff.
>>
>> If you talk A4 our American friends wont understand - they still use
>> imperial sizes - of which my favourite was double elephant...
>
>I think they use corrupted Imperial measurements (their gallon's smaller
>than ours, for example). But I take your point:
>
>A4 is 8.27" by 11.69".
>
>[...]
>> >Too easy. The child needs salvation, and salvation is being set free
>> >from sin, and it's the truth that'll set the child free...
>>
>> Lets maintain that Salvation has already been accomplished - -its a
>> fairly traditional position within Christianity, its was the nature of
>> salvation - freely given that makes it so attractive -
>>
>> --
>> James Whitehead
>
>But then there's the issue of whether or not the gift of salvation is
>accepted, and whether or not that gift is known about in order to be
>accepted, hence Christian witness and evangelism (hence MrGoodSalt's
>participation here, it seems).
>
I think MrGoodsalt does Christianity a great dis-service - yes the offer
remains open as in the case of the prodigal son, however the good
shepherd will also find and rescue the lost sheep. But its not out of
some logical reasoning but out of love. If as it seems MrGoodsalt wants
truth at all costs and at any cost then he is welcome to it, however
that's not the reason i think the shepherd searches for the lost sheep.
--
James Whitehead
Hamburger Anus Death
> In article <slrn905ape.6s0....@systemx.autonomous.org>,
> Hamburger Anus Death <hypebomb...@autonomous.org> writes
> >apart from the poster's tragic misrepresentation of postmodernism through
> >misunderstanding and oversimplification, its a very common confusion of
> >goals with methods.
>
> oh dam if po-mo cant be misunderstood and oversimplified then hell its
> not much different to modernity - you say postmodernism is merely a
> description of the state of the world as it is - well the world is very
> much oversimplified and misunderstood imo, which follows that an
> oversimplified and misunderstood idea of po-mo is spot on?
Well, no. A description of the oversimplified and dumbed down world some
of us live in isn't even very likely to be simple or dumb in itself; the
historical process of dumbing down would most likely be complex in origin
and mechanism. So that the dumb people can't see it. Anyway, it ain't
necessarily so.
IMO Most attacks on 'po-mo' always derive from the idea that its an
outline of an ideal world; a program for action rather than a report back
from the state of society. Secondarily, there is an attack on the aspect
of po-mo which says, if we seek to find out what the world has become,
then we should study that world. In simplified terms, television, cinema,
shopping centres, airport novels, usenet, mass-culture. Many people are
outraged that 'art' embraces the popular as well as the 'old masters', and
that this new study of art can give us valuable tools to look concept of
the artwork-in-the-world. Which is how an artwork operates, nowsdays;
Leonardo is Leonardo not just in himself or his artistic genius, we see
him as Leonardo from 400 years of subsequent history as well. Tertiary to
this (even though it may seem to be the primary attack at times) is the
attack on these new methods (eg the perennial discreding of Derrida, howls
about the claim that the subjective makes the objective, etc) that are
found as a consequence of the processes above.
'postmodernists' should be aware of the taxonomy of attacks mounted on
them (not that I am one, I recognise myself as a modernist in a postmodern
world), such as this woeful 'postmodern classroom' thread. If you want to
see what such a beast is, look all around you!
MrGoodSalt
>> [snip] "Naturally, there are relativists who deny truth exists. But what if
they are wrong? 'A philosophy that denies the possibility of truth is a
"
Simon Best bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> There's a problem here. The problem is, if truth does not really exist,
then rationalism cannot be relied upon. If rationalism cannot be relied
upon, rational conclusions drawn from obvious contradictions are
unsafe. Of course, what I'm concluding is somewhat contradictory with
itself, and with the way in which I'm reaching my conclusion here. But,
if rationalism is unreliable, it cannot reliably be concluded from my
self contradiction that I must therefore be wrong in this. [snip]
It seems to me that postmodernism allows one to have their cake and eat it too,
in a slimy kind of way. It doesn't just say that truth doesn't exist, it says
we cannot reach any conclusions about whether truth exists or not - that we
must remain in a state of intellectual suspended animation.
This appears to have a remarkable combination of benefits for those who are in
the process of deceiving themselves about God's existence and our moral
accountability to Him:
1) We can consider ourselves to be intelligent intellectual types - thinkers
who have gone beyond the common mob to discern the subtle truths, the more
refined meanings, the more sophisticated complexities.
We can even call ourselves guardians of objectivity and scientific reasoning
because, in the name of objectivity, we can't be ABSOLUTELY certain about
anything, even about whether truth exists or not. In short, we can perceive
ourselves to be the smart, intellectually honest people.
But that's not all...
2) We can have the freedom to do whatever we want, regardless of whatever the
truth might ever turn out to be - assuming we will ever find out what it might
be. After all, we haven't come to any conclusions about anything yet, therefore
there is no basis for affirming or disaffirming any course of action.
Postmodernism seems like an oozing, over-polysylabizised, intellectual tar pit
that simultaneously convinces it's adherents they can perceive themselves as
smart honest people and also that they will never need to be responsible to
anything higher then themselves.
Simon Best
>
> mrgoodsalt posted a quote:
> >> [snip] "Naturally, there are relativists who deny truth exists. But what
> >> if they are wrong? 'A philosophy that denies the possibility of truth is a
> >> philosophy that denies its own truth-claims. No one should take it
> >> seriously.'"
>
> Simon Best bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> > There's a problem here. The problem is, if truth does not really exist,
> > then rationalism cannot be relied upon. If rationalism cannot be relied
> > upon, rational conclusions drawn from obvious contradictions are
> > unsafe. Of course, what I'm concluding is somewhat contradictory with
> > itself, and with the way in which I'm reaching my conclusion here. But,
> > if rationalism is unreliable, it cannot reliably be concluded from my
> > self contradiction that I must therefore be wrong in this. [snip]
>
> It seems to me that postmodernism allows one to have their cake and eat it
> too, in a slimy kind of way.
'Slimy'?
I notice that you leave the key point of my last post completely
unanswered.
> It doesn't just say that truth doesn't exist, it says we cannot reach any
> conclusions about whether truth exists or not - that we must remain in a
> state of intellectual suspended animation.
Well, I don't understand what postmodernism is and isn't particularly
well, so please don't rely on what I say as being representative of
postmodernism. I really don't think I could claim myself to be a
postmodernist.
As for this idea that 'we must remain in a state of intellectual
suspended animation', I disagree with the word 'must' in that. After
all, if we have tremendous problems with relying on rationalism, we
can't be sure that such problems won't get solved. (By 'problems', I
mean like, for example, the seemingly intractable problem of proving the
reliability of logic without such a proof being some kind of tautology.)
> This appears to have a remarkable combination of benefits for those who are
> in the process of deceiving themselves about God's existence and our moral
> accountability to Him:
Eh? Who are these self deceivers you refer to?
> 1) We can consider ourselves to be intelligent intellectual types - thinkers
> who have gone beyond the common mob to discern the subtle truths, the more
> refined meanings, the more sophisticated complexities.
> We can even call ourselves guardians of objectivity and scientific reasoning
> because, in the name of objectivity, we can't be ABSOLUTELY certain about
> anything, even about whether truth exists or not. In short, we can perceive
> ourselves to be the smart, intellectually honest people.
Eh? I really don't think you really know what postmodernism is...
> But that's not all...
>
> 2) We can have the freedom to do whatever we want, regardless of whatever the
> truth might ever turn out to be - assuming we will ever find out what it
> might be.
No, I have to dispute that. Rather, for example, knowing that I don't
know the truth compels me NOT to take that attitude. If I know that I
don't know the truth, but I assume I can do whatever I want, I am
knowingly choosing to take the risk that my assumption may be very wrong
indeed. I would be choosing to accept all the consequences of that, if
that's what it turns out to mean.
So, knowing that I don't know, I cannot ignore the moral duty I
consequently have to seek the truth, at least the truth about what I
should and should not do.
> After all, we haven't come to any conclusions about anything yet, therefore
> there is no basis for affirming or disaffirming any course of action.
Eh?
> Postmodernism seems like an oozing, over-polysylabizised, intellectual tar
> pit that simultaneously convinces it's adherents they can perceive themselves
> as smart honest people and also that they will never need to be responsible
> to anything higher then themselves.
Yet you have completely ignored my question at the end of my last post,
so I'll repeat it here:
How can we know that rationalism, that logic, that human reasoning, are
reliable?
If you can't answer it, that's okay. But it would be nice if you said
so, rather than trying to lambast something you don't really understand
while ignoring the question asked.
Arthur Williamson
"MrGoodSalt" <mrgoo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001103045738...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
And another:
10. Forget memory, history and experience. Like you, they're only a social
construct.
Ned Ludd
news:3a06...@informer.hixnet.co.za...
Walpole:
> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
James:
> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go
> back to Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of
> industrialisation and the need to learn in order to integrate
> into modern mass-production - so i cant see how you could have
> a post-modern classroom.
MrGoodSalt:
> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand
> it, is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If
> this is true (and I don't believe it is) then there is no reason
> to have a classroom in the first place.
Ned:
> Here's what you need:
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
>...
> Is this starting to sound familiar?
MrGoodSalt:
> You forgot one thing:
> 9. An invoice for services not rendered.
Arthur:
> And another:
> 10. Forget memory, history and experience. Like you, they're
> only a social construct.
>
Good. Ten's a nice round number. Though I don't know who you
send the invoice to, especially if everything and everyone is a
social construct.
Ned
ubu
[snip]
> This appears to have a remarkable combination of benefits for those who are in
> the process of deceiving themselves about God's existence and our moral
> accountability to Him:
Fortunately I, for one, am not deceiving myself about God's existence and
our moral accountability to him.
[snip]
Giles
James Whitehead
engagement with something that isn't there. At its best it marks the end
of modernity rather than anything else. So of course the modernists rage
against the dying of the light.
--
James Whitehead
Simon Best
>
> In article <3A04E757...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >How can we know that rationalism, that logic, that human reasoning, are
> >reliable?
> in that there are in mathematics propositions which are both true and
> un-proveable. Or some such uncertainty. There are other variations of
> this proof.
> --
> James Whitehead
I think it was the mathematician David Hilbert who proposed three
criteria for mathematics to satisfy. I can't remember what they all
were, but one of them was to do with 'completeness'. The idea was that
mathematics should be complete, in the sense that any mathematically
syntactically valid statement should be provable or disprovable from the
axioms of mathematics. In other words, mathematics is complete if it is
possible to determine the truth of falsity of all possible mathematical
assertions.
Kurt Godel then said, mathematically, that mathematics would never prove
this assertion to be true.
If mathematics did 'prove' it to be true, there'd be a serious problem.
There'd be a contradiction implicit in the fundamentals of mathematics
that would itself prove mathematics to be wrong. If mathematics
'disproved' the assertion, and did not also 'contradict' that, the
'disproof' would be wrong. Again, the fundamentals of maths would be
erroneous. The only alternative would be for mathematics to fail to
either prove or disprove the assertion, in which case it would be
incomplete, that is, lacking in its fundamentals such that it cannot
deal with Godel's cheeky assertion.
The upshot of this was that mathematics is _incompleteable_, or at least
that it would need an infinite number of axioms to be complete.
For an encore, Godel went on to prove this incompleteness for _any_
mathematics (presumeably taking a mathematics to be something that
satisfies, or seeks to satisfy, the definition of 'mathematics' that
Godel was using for this).
I'm not aware of it specifically being about whether or not we can
reliably know that mathematics (including formal logic, of course) is
reliable (though the question obviously arises!). I think that's dealt
with rather more simply by the observation that any proof of logic
itself, that relies on logic for that proof, is merely a tautology, and
not a proof after all. Of course, that also fails to be a disproof of
logic, taking it logically...
Simon Best
>
> In article <3A04EA4F...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >James Whitehead wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3A0352E7...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> >> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >> >James Whitehead wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Will there ever be an alternative to reading books! - or will we return
> >> >> to the days when education and enlightenment involved conversation and
> >> >> dialogue - e.g. Plato, Jesus, Buddha and their chums....
> >> >
> >> >I think we are already returning to those good ol' days...
> >> >
> >> great! We can let the homeless live in the libraries ...
> >
> >Though I believe there is a place for books, too. After all, books were
> >pretty useful in how we ended up knowing about those dialogues...
>
> be useful to a progressive society to arrive at a world view by standing
> on the shoulders of giants but an alternative is to work things out for
> ourselves.
I agree that we shouldn't just accept 'received wisdom' without
question, and I don't think there really can be any 'received wisdom'
that can be exempt from reconsideration. For that reason, I question
whether or not this 'new 'wisdom'' of dispensing with books should be
just accepted...
[...]
> >> >Too easy. The child needs salvation, and salvation is being set free
> >> >from sin, and it's the truth that'll set the child free...
> >>
> >> Lets maintain that Salvation has already been accomplished - -its a
> >> fairly traditional position within Christianity, its was the nature of
> >> salvation - freely given that makes it so attractive -
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Whitehead
> >
> >But then there's the issue of whether or not the gift of salvation is
> >accepted, and whether or not that gift is known about in order to be
> >accepted, hence Christian witness and evangelism (hence MrGoodSalt's
> >participation here, it seems).
> >
>
> I think MrGoodsalt does Christianity a great dis-service - yes the offer
> remains open as in the case of the prodigal son, however the good
> shepherd will also find and rescue the lost sheep.
Many Christians believe that the metaphor of 'sheep' doesn't apply to
everyone, but only to those who choose to accept salvation. This, I
understand, has something to do with 'goats'?...
> But its not out of some logical reasoning but out of love. If as it seems
> MrGoodsalt wants truth at all costs and at any cost then he is welcome to it,
> howeverthat's not the reason i think the shepherd searches for the lost
> sheep.
> --
> James Whitehead
Something I learned about Christianity during my time as a Christian (or
when I was supposed to be a Christian), is that Christianity isn't
supposed to satisfy our judgements. This has something to do with how
we don't have the right to sit in judgement over God, and something to
do with a distinction between 'judgement' and 'discernment'. (I could
write rather a lot more on that!)
I suspect MrGoodSalt's recommended book was intending to help people to
'discern the truth' about Christianity, rather than satisfy people's
judgements. The apparent reliance on rationality, on logic, that was
indicated by MrGoodSalt's quote, suggests to me that that's how the
authors decided to approach things.
I agree that it has rather given the wrong impression.
James Whitehead
>> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
>> >How can we know that rationalism, that logic, that human reasoning, are
>> >reliable?
Turing's Halting Problem - with regards a computer programs eventual
outcome being indeterminate - which for me removes any guarantee of
reliability. I'm not a mathematician but Godel and others - the Russell
paradox and Chaitin's work on the inability to know if a given string
could be incompressible- (such string could be "THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH")
provide issues for absolutists.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
[...]
>>
>> Perhaps - however reading about other thinkers is not thinking, it might
>> be useful to a progressive society to arrive at a world view by standing
>> on the shoulders of giants but an alternative is to work things out for
>> ourselves.
>
>I agree that we shouldn't just accept 'received wisdom' without
>question, and I don't think there really can be any 'received wisdom'
>that can be exempt from reconsideration. For that reason, I question
>whether or not this 'new 'wisdom'' of dispensing with books should be
>just accepted...
Its not a new wisdom but an ironic feeling - i think we missed a chance
at the millennium to make some space- rub a little of culture out so we
could have some space - i don't think i'm that serious but culture has
become like an old relatives living room full of ornament with not a
place for anything new. Do we imagine a future of more and more books! I
suppose when they fill the earth then naturally we will reach an end. It
seems the only alternative is to take an example from cultures which are
illiterate and live in stasis with the world around them.
>> >
>> >But then there's the issue of whether or not the gift of salvation is
>> >accepted, and whether or not that gift is known about in order to be
>> >accepted, hence Christian witness and evangelism (hence MrGoodSalt's
>> >participation here, it seems).
>> >
>>
>> I think MrGoodsalt does Christianity a great dis-service - yes the offer
>> remains open as in the case of the prodigal son, however the good
>> shepherd will also find and rescue the lost sheep.
>
>Many Christians believe that the metaphor of 'sheep' doesn't apply to
>everyone, but only to those who choose to accept salvation. This, I
>understand, has something to do with 'goats'?...
Ah! there seems to have been a deal of tinkering with the Gospels, in
particular the latter transfiguring of parables into allegories. After
all pre-destination makes all our rantings including Mr Goodsalts
somewhat pointless - once a goat always a goat. =:-<=
>
>> But its not out of some logical reasoning but out of love. If as it seems
>> MrGoodsalt wants truth at all costs and at any cost then he is welcome to it,
>> howeverthat's not the reason i think the shepherd searches for the lost
>> sheep.
>
>Something I learned about Christianity during my time as a Christian (or
>when I was supposed to be a Christian), is that Christianity isn't
>supposed to satisfy our judgements. This has something to do with how
>we don't have the right to sit in judgement over God, and something to
>do with a distinction between 'judgement' and 'discernment'. (I could
>write rather a lot more on that!)
>
>I suspect MrGoodSalt's recommended book was intending to help people to
>'discern the truth' about Christianity, rather than satisfy people's
>judgements. The apparent reliance on rationality, on logic, that was
>indicated by MrGoodSalt's quote, suggests to me that that's how the
>authors decided to approach things.
>
>I agree that it has rather given the wrong impression.
>
Yes - maybe he's throwing pearls at swine....
oink oink...
--
James Whitehead
Simon Best
>
> In article <3A088235...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
[...]
> >I'm not aware of it specifically being about whether or not we can
> >reliably know that mathematics (including formal logic, of course) is
> >reliable (though the question obviously arises!). I think that's dealt
> >with rather more simply by the observation that any proof of logic
> >itself, that relies on logic for that proof, is merely a tautology, and
> >not a proof after all. Of course, that also fails to be a disproof of
> >logic, taking it logically...
> >
> >Simon
> >
> Thanks for the above - as for reliability the practical demonstration is
> Turing's Halting Problem - with regards a computer programs eventual
> outcome being indeterminate - which for me removes any guarantee of
> reliability. I'm not a mathematician but Godel and others - the Russell
> paradox and Chaitin's work on the inability to know if a given string
> could be incompressible- (such string could be "THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH")
> provide issues for absolutists.
> --
> James Whitehead
There are many intriguing problems (hence I intend to study mathematics
later on in my life, out of curiousity if nothing else).
Anyway, MrGoodSalt seems to have given up on this... I guess he had no
real answer?
Simon Best
>
> In article <3A0889B3...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
[...]
> >Many Christians believe that the metaphor of 'sheep' doesn't apply to
> >everyone, but only to those who choose to accept salvation. This, I
> >understand, has something to do with 'goats'?...
>
> Ah! there seems to have been a deal of tinkering with the Gospels, in
> particular the latter transfiguring of parables into allegories. After
> all pre-destination makes all our rantings including Mr Goodsalts
> somewhat pointless - once a goat always a goat. =:-<=
I'm distrusting of the idea of 'pre-destination' as usually presented
(at least, as usually presented to me by Christians who believed it).
It usually seemed to be a tangly mess from trying to make sense of
something that didn't fit into nice'n'easy linear time. But I must say
that there's some variety of opinion and belief among Christians as to
whether or not 'pre-destination' should even be a part of Christianity,
and what it really is if there is such a thing.
[...]
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A0889B3...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
>> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
>[...]
>> >Many Christians believe that the metaphor of 'sheep' doesn't apply to
>> >everyone, but only to those who choose to accept salvation. This, I
>> >understand, has something to do with 'goats'?...
>>
>> Ah! there seems to have been a deal of tinkering with the Gospels, in
>> particular the latter transfiguring of parables into allegories. After
>> all pre-destination makes all our rantings including Mr Goodsalts
>> somewhat pointless - once a goat always a goat. =:-<=
>
>I'm distrusting of the idea of 'pre-destination' as usually presented
>(at least, as usually presented to me by Christians who believed it).
>It usually seemed to be a tangly mess from trying to make sense of
>something that didn't fit into nice'n'easy linear time. But I must say
>that there's some variety of opinion and belief among Christians as to
>whether or not 'pre-destination' should even be a part of Christianity,
>and what it really is if there is such a thing.
>
>[...]
>
>Simon
>
would have guessed it turned out like this?"
--
James Whitehead
Franklin Cacciutto
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/dangers.html
Walpole wrote:
> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
> suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Julie
Franklin Cacciutto
Ned Ludd wrote:
> Walpole:
> >>> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom.
> >>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> James:
> >> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to
> >> Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation
> >> and the need to learn in order to integrate into modern
> >> mass-production - so i cant see how you could have a post-modern
> >> classroom.
>
> MrGoodSalt:
> > The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it,
> > is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is
> > true (and I don't believe it is) then there is no reason to have a
> > classroom in the first place.
> >
>
> Here's what you need:
>
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
> ...
>
> Is this starting to sound familiar?
>
> Ned
Ned Ludd
news:3A1D0D8E...@earthlink.net...
Walpole:
>>> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom.
>>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
James:
>> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to
>> Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation
>> and the need to learn in order to integrate into modern
>> mass-production - so i cant see how you could have a post-modern
>> classroom.
MrGoodSalt:
> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it,
> is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is
> true (and I don't believe it is) then there is no reason to have a
> classroom in the first place.
Ned:
> Here's what you need:
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
> ...
> Is this starting to sound familiar?
Franklin:
> And, perhaps, no teacher.
>
Or no one who isn't a teacher.
Ned
G*rd*n
Franklin Cacciutto <shad...@earthlink.net>:
| > And, perhaps, no teacher.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Or no one who isn't a teacher.
You all are being awfully literal, even -- dare I say it --
modernistic. Regardless of whether "objective external
truth" exists, one can have a "classroom" which includes a
designated place, texts, syllabi, structures, hierarchies,
rules of order, scheduled events, criteria for advancement,
and teachers / non-teachers. What a "postmodernist" (by
which I mean a contemporary philosopher or cult-critiste)
would point out is not that you can't have these things but
that they're _artifices_ produced by the will of the
participants, usually in concert with others off the stage --
the whole business is rather theatrical. They're not grounded
in some kind of ultimate truth like the will of God and Man
at Yale.
I don't even know if proceeding with this understanding is
particularly postmodern. When I went to school forty years
ago, which was still modern times, I believe, most people
understood that the academic system had no absolute, objective
validity. They were there to engage artifices: to obtain or
demonstrate social, economic, or political preferment; to
please their parents and relatives; to play a game which
they enjoyed; to submit to fetishized authority. Some marginal
types actually enjoyed the material for itself. Probably,
then, all classrooms except the most delusional are already
postmodern, and Walpole need do nothing but grasp actuality.
James Whitehead
was a good thing too, nowadays countries change monthly.....
--
James Whitehead
Tim
You gave the following list of criteria for a postmodern class room:
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
1. Anywhere people want.
2. Any text people choose to study.
3. Any syllabus people choose, including their own or someone else's.
4. Any structure people want including chaotic and unstructured.
5. Any relationship people choose including hierarchical or shared.
6. People can choose to say anything they want at any time or follow set
rules for debate.
7. People can pick and choose what ever takes their fancy.
8. People choose their own criteria whether its for advancement or any
other reason.
Strange as I wrote this it occurred to me that both our sets of criteria
seem to be describing the same place. I'm sure I've been their before
but I just can't quite remember were it was!
Tim ; )
Ned Ludd
news:Q2xzLKAy...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
Walpole:
> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
James:
> Classrooms must be products of modernity - their origins go back to
> Plato's Academy? but education for all is part of industrialisation
> and the need to learn in order to integrate into modern
> mass-production - so i cant see how you could have a post-modern
> classroom.
MrGoodSalt:
> The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it,
> is that objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is
> true (and I don't believe it is) then there is no reason to have a
> classroom in the first place.
Ned:
> Here's what you need:
> 1. No designated place.
> 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> 3. No syllabus.
> 4. No structure.
> 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> 7. No scheduled events.
> 8. No criteria for advancement.
> ...
> Is this starting to sound familiar?
Franklin Cacciutto <shad...@earthlink.net>:
> And, perhaps, no teacher.
Ned:
> Or no one who isn't a teacher.
Gordon:
> You all are being awfully literal, even -- dare I say it --
> modernistic. Regardless of whether "objective external
> truth" exists, one can have a "classroom" which includes a
> designated place, texts, syllabi, structures, hierarchies,
> rules of order, scheduled events, criteria for advancement,
> and teachers / non-teachers. What a "postmodernist" (by
> which I mean a contemporary philosopher or cult-critiste)
> would point out is not that you can't have these things but
> that they're _artifices_ produced by the will of the
> participants, usually in concert with others off the stage --
> the whole business is rather theatrical. They're not grounded
> in some kind of ultimate truth like the will of God and Man
> at Yale.
> I don't even know if proceeding with this understanding is
> particularly postmodern. When I went to school forty years
> ago, which was still modern times, I believe, most people
> understood that the academic system had no absolute, objective
> validity. They were there to engage artifices: to obtain or
> demonstrate social, economic, or political preferment; to
> please their parents and relatives; to play a game which
> they enjoyed; to submit to fetishized authority. Some marginal
> types actually enjoyed the material for itself. Probably,
> then, all classrooms except the most delusional are already
> postmodern, and Walpole need do nothing but grasp actuality.
James:
> when i went to school the world was mostly pink - and we were told
> it was a good thing too, nowadays countries change monthly.....
>
Gordon says that all the elements of teaching are artifices of
will, not grounded in ultimate truth. (He provisionally begs the
question of whether or not Objective External Truth exists - but
does recommend that Walpole "grasp actuality".)
How is "my world in pink" (as taught to us old folks when we
were young) any different that this?
The world no longer being pink - or only being pink, blue or
saffron as a collective act of will - is a significantly more
disturbing proposition than understanding the "academic system
has no absolute, objective validity".
The world's lack of pinkness may be the undoing of us all.
This concerns the behavior of barons in a nation-state lacking
any external threat.
Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
when postmodernism prevails in academe?
I have no idea. All I have is a small scrap of poetry from
a thousand years ago...
Clothes in brocades and fine embroidery,
with falcons on their wrists,
They go about at leisure, their manner scornful.
They know nothing of the difficulties of sowing
and harvesting.
What kind of people were the Ancient Emperors?
- from "The Behavior of Barons", by Ch'an Yueh
Ned Ludd
news:8vmjdd$nla$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Tim ; )
>
Babel-Tower? Yes, if this persists, soon nothing will be restrained
from us which we have imagined to do, and the Lord will come down and
confound our language, that we may not understand one another's speech,
and scatter us abroad upon the face of all the earth. Hmm... I think
we've been there before, too.
Ned
plu...@freemail.nl
>"Walpole" wal...@rof.net wrote:
>> I am doing a project in which I create a postmodern classroom. Any
>suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>My suggestion is DO NOT create a postmodern classroom.
>
>The primary practical premise of postmodernism, as I understand it, is that
>objective external truth simply does not exist. If this is true (and I don't
>believe it is) then there is no reason to have a classroom in the first place.
Actually if there is no objective, external truth then how could such
a statement be 'true'?
Which just shows how the religious arbiters of the knowledge of truth
have got it all wrong about postmodernism.
Of course there is objective, external truth - this truth however is
not given by some bearded guy up in the sky (religion), nor is it
given by the objective interpretation of empirical data (science).
Postmodernism critiques both (and other) approaches and suggests that
objective, external truth while existing and effective in appeals to
it (take any western court of law), is a product of and internal to
the linguistic system which allows us to utter the word "truth" in the
first place.
And that this word truth is not a mediation of something 'out there'
outside of language, but is actively informed and transformed by the
dialectics and dynamics of the language in which it is spoken.
"Die Wahrheit macht Sie frei"
is that a true statement, if you do not speak the language in which
this statement has meaning?
or is it just meaningless babble?
plu...@freemail.nl
wrote:
That's not all you have. What you have is a translation into modern
english of a scrap of poetry, more or less identical to its original
but in which no doubt meaning has slipped, has been altered, is
changed.
Even your scrap of text says more about modern english than rhetoric.
>
>
>
>
plu...@freemail.nl
wrote:
>Tim <jones200...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
Actually postmodernism is as much a description of the currrent state
in which mainly western speech communities find themselves in, as it
is an ideological construct.
Seeing as all big-truth-stories are ideological at least postmodernism
has going for it that it admits its own ideology.
Look at the massive amounts of text, the various opinions,
interpretations, responses, flames, and comebacks the original
question here has generated.
And finally there will be no moderator to say enough, here is the
truth, no shut up the lot of you.
The thread will die out of itself when people lose interest.
And noone will really be any more sure of the truth than before
(unless you've already decided beforehand what it is).
That's what postmodernism is. Lots of text, some people saying there's
objective external truth, others who say there's not, and no one to
put their foot down and censure or even stop the debate, and guarantee
meaning for us, poor lost little kids that we are.
>
>
>
G*rd*n
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| ...
| Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
| of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
| of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
| when postmodernism prevails in academe?
|
| I have no idea. ...
Come on, the answer is obvious. Academe is a kind of business,
and the ascendancy of postmodernism benefits those who have
invested in it. Probably, academe as a whole benefits because
it needs to bring new products forward from time to time.
Meanwhile older products can be warehoused or recycled,
especially for older or less-affluent customers. Just the
other day I observed some writer in the _Village_Voice_ puffing
Aristotelian cornballs.
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
>of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
>of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
>when postmodernism prevails in academe?
stance, methodology etc. I think po-mo for many is far worse than
modernity, it lacks meaning and a programme. I think of a comparative
historical period - europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire -
sure people were free from roman taxes and domination but it was not an
improvement but a collapse of society. Post modernism must eventually be
fatal to academia? In any event maybe already is so - the "scientist" -
"sociologist" hasn't the public standing they used to have.
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
overlapping perspectives of subject positions and understandings, but
it is still (mostly) a product of the academia - the one thing which
sets it apart is the distinct attempt to be interdisciplinary, and to
not to coerce students and teachers alike into an academic-
bureaucratic mind loop.
Joyce
>
> Ned:
> > Here's what you need:
> > 1. No designated place.
> > 2. No text. (At least no authorized, unchanging text.)
> > 3. No syllabus.
> > 4. No structure.
> > 5. No hierarchy. (i.e. no student/teacher relationship)
> > 6. No rules of order. (Anyone can say anything at any time.)
> > 7. No scheduled events.
> > 8. No criteria for advancement.
> > ...
> > Is this starting to sound familiar?
>
> Franklin:
> > And, perhaps, no teacher.
> >
>
> Or no one who isn't a teacher.
>
> Ned
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ned Ludd
news:3a1fadb9...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Ned:
> The world's lack of pinkness may be the undoing of us all.
> This concerns the behavior of barons in a nation-state lacking
> any external threat.
> Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
> of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
> of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
> when postmodernism prevails in academe?
> I have no idea. All I have is a small scrap of poetry from
> a thousand years ago...
>
> Clothes in brocades and fine embroidery,
> with falcons on their wrists,
> They go about at leisure, their manner scornful.
> They know nothing of the difficulties of sowing
> and harvesting.
> What kind of people were the Ancient Emperors?
> - from "The Behavior of Barons", by Ch'an Yueh
Pluto6:
> That's not all you have. What you have is a translation into modern
> english of a scrap of poetry, more or less identical to its original
> but in which no doubt meaning has slipped, has been altered, is
> changed.
> Even your scrap of text says more about modern english than rhetoric.
>
Oh goody! Please deconstruct Ch'an Yueh's poem. (or the English
version of it.) It is recorded that the Emperor Shen Tsung (r. 1068-
1085) thought that this verse ridiculed the state, so he wouldn't let
it be included in the Buddhist canon. I think it's possible that this
verse could be interpreted as an enlightenment poem, however.
Ned
Ned Ludd
news:3a1faf85...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Tim:
>> Strange as I wrote this it occurred to me that both our sets of
>> criteria seem to be describing the same place. I'm sure I've been
>> there before but I just can't quite remember were it was!
>> Tim ; )
Ned:
> Babel-Tower? Yes, if this persists, soon nothing will be restrained
> from us which we have imagined to do, and the Lord will come down and
> confound our language, that we may not understand one another's speech,
> and scatter us abroad upon the face of all the earth. Hmm... I think
> we've been there before, too.
Pluto6:
> Actually postmodernism is as much a description of the currrent state
> in which mainly western speech communities find themselves in, as it
> is an ideological construct.
> Seeing as all big-truth-stories are ideological at least postmodernism
> has going for it that it admits its own ideology.
> Look at the massive amounts of text, the various opinions,
> interpretations, responses, flames, and comebacks the original
> question here has generated.
> And finally there will be no moderator to say enough, here is the
> truth, no shut up the lot of you.
> The thread will die out of itself when people lose interest.
> And noone will really be any more sure of the truth than before
> (unless you've already decided beforehand what it is).
> That's what postmodernism is. Lots of text, some people saying there's
> objective external truth, others who say there's not, and no one to
> put their foot down and censure or even stop the debate, and guarantee
> meaning for us, poor lost little kids that we are.
>
Lost on the internet!? How can anyone be lost when they're on the
internet?
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
| Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
| of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
| of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
| when postmodernism prevails in academe?
| I have no idea. ...
Gordon:
> Come on, the answer is obvious. Academe is a kind of business,
> and the ascendancy of postmodernism benefits those who have
> invested in it. Probably, academe as a whole benefits because
> it needs to bring new products forward from time to time.
> Meanwhile older products can be warehoused or recycled,
> especially for older or less-affluent customers. Just the
> other day I observed some writer in the _Village_Voice_ puffing
> Aristotelian cornballs.
>
A penny for Plato? Descartes for a dime? Certainly that must
be the kingdom of heaven? The real marketers only make big money
off of scarcity. In the kingdom of heaven, how can academe keep
ideas scarce?
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
>> Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
>> of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
>> of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
>> when postmodernism prevails in academe?
>
> as some stance, methodology etc. I think po-mo for many is far
> worse than modernity, it lacks meaning and a programme. I think
> of a comparative historical period - europe after the collapse
> of the Roman Empire - sure people were free from roman taxes and
> domination but it was not an improvement but a collapse of society.
> Post modernism must eventually be fatal to academia? In any event
> maybe already is so - the "scientist" - "sociologist" hasn't the
> public standing they used to have.
>
- "lacks meaning and a programme"
- "europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire"
- "collapse of society"
- "fatal to academia"
You are talking about a dark age. A kali-yuga. Knowledge was
preserved in little capsules at churches, in the prior dark ages
that have beset civilizations. It served as a sifting and winnowing
process for the body of written knowledge. Prairie fire also typifies
this event.
So academe is bringing it on itself? It is the final intellectually
suicidal event of a civilization in its last stages?
> In any event maybe already is so - the "scientist" - "sociologist"
> hasn't the public standing they used to have.
>
Well, I'd hardly say a scholar not getting any respect is grounds for
calling the end of western civilization.
You can't see postmodernism as just another "buzz word", just another
scam to shift power in certain places where it had accumulated, to other
places that want it?
Ned
G*rd*n
| | Whom do the postmodernists serve? I'm not looking for a chain
| | of command here, but rather, "who benefits from the ascendancy
| | of postmodernism?" Whose oxen get gored and whose get spared
| | when postmodernism prevails in academe?
Gordon:
| > Come on, the answer is obvious. Academe is a kind of business,
| > and the ascendancy of postmodernism benefits those who have
| > invested in it. Probably, academe as a whole benefits because
| > it needs to bring new products forward from time to time.
| > Meanwhile older products can be warehoused or recycled,
| > especially for older or less-affluent customers. Just the
| > other day I observed some writer in the _Village_Voice_ puffing
| > Aristotelian cornballs.
Ned:
| A penny for Plato? Descartes for a dime? Certainly that must
| be the kingdom of heaven? The real marketers only make big money
| off of scarcity. In the kingdom of heaven, how can academe keep
| ideas scarce?
Copyright, concealment, obfuscation, effacement, pedigree,
dissimulation, to name but a few. You'll notice that academia
is increasingly interested in monetizing its properties.
Given that a lot of the old stuff has leaked into the public
domain (like the aforesaid cornballs) new, more suitable
material is needed and is being provided.
Ned Ludd
G*rd*n:
| > Come on, the answer is obvious. Academe is a kind of business,
| > and the ascendancy of postmodernism benefits those who have
| > invested in it. Probably, academe as a whole benefits because
| > it needs to bring new products forward from time to time.
| > Meanwhile older products can be warehoused or recycled,
| > especially for older or less-affluent customers. Just the
| > other day I observed some writer in the _Village_Voice_ puffing
| > Aristotelian cornballs.
Ned:
| A penny for Plato? Descartes for a dime? Certainly that must
| be the kingdom of heaven? The real marketers only make big money
| off of scarcity. In the kingdom of heaven, how can academe keep
| ideas scarce?
G*rd*n:
> Copyright, concealment, obfuscation, effacement, pedigree,
> dissimulation, to name but a few. You'll notice that academia
> is increasingly interested in monetizing its properties.
> Given that a lot of the old stuff has leaked into the public
> domain (like the aforesaid cornballs) new, more suitable
> material is needed and is being provided.
>
When postmodernism deconstructs all the theories, doesn't
that degrade them? Its business seems to be devaluation.
Thus, is it a poison, "fatal to academia", or just a bunch of
impresarios opening up everything as a big three-ring circus?
Ned
G*rd*n
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| When postmodernism deconstructs all the theories, doesn't
| that degrade them? Its business seems to be devaluation.
| Thus, is it a poison, "fatal to academia", or just a bunch of
| impresarios opening up everything as a big three-ring circus?
"Postmodernism" evidently doesn't degrade the theory that one
should pay a lot of money to get degrees (or, if one already
has a few, spend the money for obfusc Heideggerian tomes or
erudite conferences on Elvis Presley). Here's a value
that's not so readily transvaluated, eh?
Ned Ludd
Ned:
| When postmodernism deconstructs all the theories, doesn't
| that degrade them? Its business seems to be devaluation.
| Thus, is it a poison, "fatal to academia", or just a bunch of
| impresarios opening up everything as a big three-ring circus?
G*rd*n:
> "Postmodernism" evidently doesn't degrade the theory that one
> should pay a lot of money to get degrees (or, if one already
> has a few, spend the money for obfusc Heideggerian tomes or
> erudite conferences on Elvis Presley). Here's a value that's
> not so readily transvaluated, eh?
>
It is a living thing. It seeks to be honored and validated,
as all living things do. Would you deny it its value? Would
you denigrate it for the service it provides?
Ned
G*rd*n
| | When postmodernism deconstructs all the theories, doesn't
| | that degrade them? Its business seems to be devaluation.
| | Thus, is it a poison, "fatal to academia", or just a bunch of
| | impresarios opening up everything as a big three-ring circus?
G*rd*n:
| > "Postmodernism" evidently doesn't degrade the theory that one
| > should pay a lot of money to get degrees (or, if one already
| > has a few, spend the money for obfusc Heideggerian tomes or
| > erudite conferences on Elvis Presley). Here's a value that's
| > not so readily transvaluated, eh?
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| It is a living thing. It seeks to be honored and validated,
| as all living things do. Would you deny it its value? Would
| you denigrate it for the service it provides?
What, academia? I'm not particularly fond of bourgeois
institutions. It's true they provide services, but this
activity is often tied in with various forms of oppression
which either create needs which would not exist without the
oppression, or which prevent people from providing the services
for themselves. The main functions of academia seem to be
to sequester and create scarcities of intellectual goods, and
to perpetuate the class system. I don't see what in that I
would want to honor and validate. It is miraculous that
postmodern skepticism does not extend to the wisdom of
paying tuition, publishing texts impacted with neologisms
for the sake of neologism, or struggling for tenure. These
_grands_écrits rule unchallenged.
If it's "postmodernism" that's supposed to be a living thing,
I have trouble reifying a fashion or style into a subject as
in "[i]t seeks...." You'll have to explain to me how a fashion
can seek anything, except very metaphorically. The dreams
of Saraswati?
Ned Ludd
Ned:
| | When postmodernism deconstructs all the theories, doesn't
| | that degrade them? Its business seems to be devaluation.
| | Thus, is it a poison, "fatal to academia", or just a bunch of
| | impresarios opening up everything as a big three-ring circus?
G*rd*n:
| > "Postmodernism" evidently doesn't degrade the theory that one
| > should pay a lot of money to get degrees (or, if one already
| > has a few, spend the money for obfusc Heideggerian tomes or
| > erudite conferences on Elvis Presley). Here's a value that's
| > not so readily transvaluated, eh?
Ned:
| It is a living thing. It seeks to be honored and validated,
| as all living things do. Would you deny it its value? Would
| you denigrate it for the service it provides?
G*rd*n:
> What, academia? I'm not particularly fond of bourgeois
> institutions. It's true they provide services, but this
> activity is often tied in with various forms of oppression
> which either create needs which would not exist without the
> oppression, or which prevent people from providing the services
> for themselves. The main functions of academia seem to be
> to sequester and create scarcities of intellectual goods, and
> to perpetuate the class system. I don't see what in that I
> would want to honor and validate. It is miraculous that
> postmodern skepticism does not extend to the wisdom of
> paying tuition, publishing texts impacted with neologisms
> for the sake of neologism, or struggling for tenure. These
> _grands_écrits rule unchallenged.
> If it's "postmodernism" that's supposed to be a living thing,
> I have trouble reifying a fashion or style into a subject as
> in "[i]t seeks...." You'll have to explain to me how a fashion
> can seek anything, except very metaphorically. The dreams
> of Saraswati?
>
Excellent rant. It was 'postmodernism' that I was referring
to, not academia. But I agree with all the comments about
academia. (Let me review to make sure: bourgeois... oppression...
created-needs... prevents self-sufficiency... creates scarcity...
class system... high-cost (tuition)... book-business... and
buzz-words - yup, that about sums it up.)
As for postmodernism, I was referring to the 'meme' aspect
of it. Despite your reluctance to reify a fashion, especially
ascribing 'intent' to it, ideas live and flourish in the human
consciousness. They live and flourish in universities and in
corporations (where I am most familiar with them), and in any
assemblage of human beings.
Generally we think of humans using ideas. But I guarantee you
that there comes a point (at least in large corporations) when
some ideas take on a life of their own. LONG after the particular
person or group who favored the idea has retired, been transferred,
lost power, or died, the idea continues to prevail within the
organization. And it exerts influence, prevents certain actions,
requires certain other actions, etc., just as if it were a real
entity.
We could do a little song and dance about how this is just the
persistence of memory, or the sluggishness of human thought to
accept new things, etc., but this effect functions like living
thing. Humans are its vessels and agents, but ideas die hard
in large organizations.
I've hoped that postmodernism is more than a circus - that it
might be 'great poison' needed to kill ideas that have outlived
all their validity and utility.
Ned
G*rd*n
One thing meme fans don't seem to engage very much is the
identity problem of the supposed meme. The term often seems
to be used as synonymous with _idea_, but ideas do not have
the same conservatism of form that, say, viruses or morphemes
have, so that it is very hard to say that a particular idea
in one person's mind is more than approximately reproduced in
another's (unless it comes along with a considerable formal
apparatus, which most do not). If that is the case, it is
something of a stretch to say that ideas (or ideas as memes)
_live_on_ in the sense that microbes do or low-level
behaviors do.
However, I think that any human community produces a _culture_
-- a system of mutually reinforcing, self-perpetuating ideas
and behaviors. The culture doesn't have to be fully realized
in any particular constituent in order to be effective and to
persist over time. Cultures are indeed conservative. My
guess is that there is some reason for this; that it serves
some purpose for the people who maintain it. In order to
change or subvert the culture one needs to understand what
it is doing, and I don't think this is well understood. I
don't see how a mere fashion for skeptical protestations is
going to advance the attack on this problem very much.
After all, my idea wends perilously close to structuralism,
when we're all supposed to be post-.
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes>news:6kRZPCAx...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
[...]
>
> - "lacks meaning and a programme"
> - "europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire"
> - "collapse of society"
> - "fatal to academia"
>
> You are talking about a dark age. A kali-yuga. Knowledge was
>preserved in little capsules at churches, in the prior dark ages
>that have beset civilizations. It served as a sifting and winnowing
>process for the body of written knowledge. Prairie fire also typifies
>this event.
>
> So academe is bringing it on itself? It is the final intellectually
>suicidal event of a civilization in its last stages?
Maybe comparable to the roman empire's adoption of Christianity?
>
>> In any event maybe already is so - the "scientist" - "sociologist"
>> hasn't the public standing they used to have.
>>
>
> Well, I'd hardly say a scholar not getting any respect is grounds for
>calling the end of western civilization.
there's no single event - just a series - witness the end of democracy
in the USA - collapsing into banality...
>
> You can't see postmodernism as just another "buzz word", just another
>scam to shift power in certain places where it had accumulated, to other
>places that want it?
>
it could be - and some try to use it as such - but the idea of progress
is something which post-modernity recognizes as being over, and progress
- the creation of new ideas via rational processes seems central to any
continuing academic hierarchy - again Christianity is an act of faith -
post-modernism an act of bad-faith? :-)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>| I've hoped that postmodernism is more than a circus - that it
>| might be 'great poison' needed to kill ideas that have outlived
>| all their validity and utility.
that's like asking what kind of ship the iceberg was
--
James Whitehead