Teacherin'

[Selene]

Even then they new...

"And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein" (Isa. 35:8).

And even now do we...

[caroljane]

Even then they new...

"And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein" (Isa. 35:8).

And even now do we...

Schoomarmishly, strait and straight are not the same.

Carol

respectably clad in checked gingham

[Selene]

studiously humbled

[caroljane]

studiously humbled

There is no prouder posture.

[Selene]

studiously humbled

There is no prouder posture.

erect;y humbled

[anthony]

I know that all knowledge is self=taught, but I can never believe that souls are self-made. Too strait is the gate, too narrow is the way.

Carol,

Now where did that come from? You do surprise, often, so I'm becoming less surprised - also, you cast a lot of bait on the water.

This time I will take a nibble at it. That's me: Tony J MacKerel .

I know that you know that Rand borrowed back "soul" for her own purposes, and tellingly, too, (but I would say that).

Obviously, it matters how we frame "soul", but whichever way, we always arrive at the point of:

whose soul is it anyway ?

who's to do the 'making' of it (and how)?

who gets to benefit from the 'making'?

Hoping you'll take a bite at this. B)

Tony

Edited April 11, 2011 by whYNOT

[caroljane]

I know that all knowledge is self=taught, but I can never believe that souls are self-made. Too strait is the gate, too narrow is the way.

Carol,

Now where did that come from? You do surprise, often, so I'm becoming less surprised - also, you cast a lot of bait on the water.

This time I will take a nibble at it. That's me: Tony J MacKerel .

I know that you know that Rand borrowed back "soul" for her own purposes, and tellingly, too, (but I would say that).

Obviously, it matters how we frame "soul", but whichever way, we always arrive at the point of:

whose soul is it anyway ?

who's to do the 'making' of it (and how)?

who gets to benefit from the 'making'?

Hoping you'll take a bite at this. B)

Tony

Dear Mr MacKerel,

I knew there was some Scottish in you somewhere! It isnae rational to gie a man a fish, looking at the scandalous price of fish these days - if everybody would learn to fish they could bluidy well eat.

The soul I think of as the essential self, and I think Rand did too in her own way. Her way was to consider the essential self as a combination of rationally-integrated elements derived from reality. The mind reflected and fed the soul, and directed the body to express its highest values - productive work, with self-esteem and love as its rewards.

Undoubtedly I am misreading or distorting Rand's message, but my impression above is what I perceive as strait and stringent in it.

[anthony]

The soul I think of as the essential self, and I think Rand did too in her own way. Her way was to consider the essential self as a combination of rationally-integrated elements derived from reality. The mind reflected and fed the soul, and directed the body to express its highest values - productive work, with self-esteem and love as its rewards.

Undoubtedly I am misreading or distorting Rand's message, but my impression above is what I perceive as strait and stringent in it.

Carol,

No, definitely not, are you "distorting Rand's message", I'm sure. Your own explanation is probably very close to hers - if I could find one. Mostly, she referred to the soul quite obliquely, as in: "...but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul." and, "In the temple of his spirit each man is alone."etc.

I do not understand completely your conviction, here, since on the one hand, you accurately in O'ist manner portray the make-up of the soul ("the mind reflected and fed the soul"), but you don't seem to accept the next logical step: that the soul is self-made; ("but I can never believe that souls are self-made").

Surely, the two statements don't gel?

There is no direct means to 'make' one's soul, self-evidently; but indirectly through consciousness (and self-consciousness), independence of mind, experiences, deeds, upheld virtues and emotions, can a great soul develop. It is the distillate of all those elements, and more. In common with the 'immortal' soul, everybody has one. The secular, mortal, soul - however - is a repository that one either fills oneself, or one passively allows to be filled, by the random and arbitrary.

(imo)

Tony

[caroljane]

I've just watched a documentary about the travails of parents trying to get their toddlers accepted into private preschools in New York. These kids are two and three. The parents undertake campaigns as carefully organized and stragegized as Hill & Knowlton's selling of the first Gulf War, although for entirely benign purpose. One couple, "used to reaching the goals they aim for", actually moved out of New York when rejected by the top school they had targeted.

Watching this made me think of two things. One I do not like to remember. It was a series of postings on another O-site from a father who was raising his son from the perspective that "he has 10,000 hours (or whatever) before he hits the ground running as an adult" and needs to be intensively coached educationally and morally to that end. The boy is eight, and has only had to be beaten once; the only beating-worthy offence is lying, and the beatings have always been rationally explained and understood by the child.

The other is that I probably have always had low expectations for my own children. They have already surpassed them, when I wasn't even looking.

[Selene]

Carol:

Interesting.

As an only child, there was an un stated positive pressure that, de facto, pushed me to excel. Thankfully, that was balanced by an inquisitive love of life atmosphere in our home.

However, I have seen parents push their children to places where they literally self destructed. Additionally, I have seen parents who forced their children to be what they had wanted to be, but due to one reason or another, they failed to achieve it.

There is a fine line between motivating your child to achieve being the best person that they can become and oppressing them with that goal.

Parenting is a skill position which needs to be blessed with a solid dose of luck, so as not to damage that which you love.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

Interesting.

As an only child, there was an un stated positive pressure that, de facto, pushed me to excel. Thankfully, that was balanced by an inquisitive love of life atmosphere in our home.

However, I have seen parents push their children to places where they literally self destructed. Additionally, I have seen parents who forced their children to be what they had wanted to be, but due to one reason or another, they failed to achieve it.

There is a fine line between motivating your child to achieve being the best person that they can become and oppressing them with that goal.

Parenting is a skill position which needs to be blessed with a solid dose of luck, so as not to damage that which you love.

Adam

Adam, as you know my only-child experience was much like yours. Certainly I always was encouraged to feel special and individual. One difference, I am pretty sure that you did not have to wear Shirley Temple ringlets and long curls until the age of 10.Bobby pins in the head every night except Friday. Talk about visibility. If there had been a burqa handy I would often gladly have worn it.

[Selene]

Carol:

Interesting.

As an only child, there was an un stated positive pressure that, de facto, pushed me to excel. Thankfully, that was balanced by an inquisitive love of life atmosphere in our home.

However, I have seen parents push their children to places where they literally self destructed. Additionally, I have seen parents who forced their children to be what they had wanted to be, but due to one reason or another, they failed to achieve it.

There is a fine line between motivating your child to achieve being the best person that they can become and oppressing them with that goal.

Parenting is a skill position which needs to be blessed with a solid dose of luck, so as not to damage that which you love.

Adam

Adam, as you know my only-child experience was much like yours. Certainly I always was encouraged to feel special and individual. One difference, I am pretty sure that you did not have to wear Shirley Temple ringlets and long curls until the age of 10.Bobby pins in the head every night except Friday. Talk about visibility. If there had been a burqa handy I would often gladly have worn it.

That one picture with me is the Shirley Temple outfit is not going to keep me out of the lodge I hope?

[caroljane]

Carol:

Interesting.

As an only child, there was an un stated positive pressure that, de facto, pushed me to excel. Thankfully, that was balanced by an inquisitive love of life atmosphere in our home.

However, I have seen parents push their children to places where they literally self destructed. Additionally, I have seen parents who forced their children to be what they had wanted to be, but due to one reason or another, they failed to achieve it.

There is a fine line between motivating your child to achieve being the best person that they can become and oppressing them with that goal.

Parenting is a skill position which needs to be blessed with a solid dose of luck, so as not to damage that which you love.

Adam

Adam, as you know my only-child experience was much like yours. Certainly I always was encouraged to feel special and individual. One difference, I am pretty sure that you did not have to wear Shirley Temple ringlets and long curls until the age of 10.Bobby pins in the head every night except Friday. Talk about visibility. If there had been a burqa handy I would often gladly have worn it.

That one picture with me is the Shirley Temple outfit is not going to keep me out of the lodge I hope?

Keep you out? Brothers McAloon and MacDonald have been praying for a step=dancing partner for the past 20 years!(Hope you're up on Don Messer - we don't go much fer the newfangled Riverdance)

[studiodekadent]

Nobody hates teachers, as such. But many are getting sick of the whining from allegedly underpaid government-funded parasites

Uh, what you are saying is everybody hates teachers as such, and what's not to hate? the overpayment, the whining, the parasitism, not to mention the long holidays--have I missed anything?

There's a difference between "teachers as such" and "public education unions" (especially those which have legal priveliges and can force non-members to pay).

That said, lets add a few things to the "why teachers suck" list;

- Being the enforcers of a system which strips away independent thought and inculcates obedience, conformity and groupthink

- Collaborating with and benefitting from said system (Exemption for Montessori teachers and those that are laissez-faire with their classes like my English teacher in years 11 and 12)

- Rationalizing, justifying and advocating on behalf of said system

True, there are exceptions. But the educational establishment as it stands is a rotten mind-control bureaucracy more concerned with 'social adjustment' rather than actual education (teaching people to think accurately and, most critically, independently) and is in grave need of some radical revolutionization (and, in my mind, deserving of some retribution).

[Philip Coates]

> the educational establishment as it stands is a rotten mind-control bureaucracy more concerned with 'social adjustment' rather than actual education [sDK]

Public schools vary enormously from country to country and between demographics. And there are always private schools, which is where I taught. And adult ed and community college/subject specific colleges.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Philip Coates

[studiodekadent]

> the educational establishment as it stands is a rotten mind-control bureaucracy more concerned with 'social adjustment' rather than actual education [sDK]

Public schools vary enormously from country to country and between demographics. And there are always private schools, which is where I taught. And adult ed and community college/subject specific colleges.

I was taught in a private school too. The point I was making was more about the state of most non-tertiary educational institutions and their pedagogical philosophies, both public and private.

[anthony]

I am interested in Carol's, Phil's, SD's take on AS Neill, and his concept of education.

I read 'Summerhill' years ago and was quite taken with his 'hands off', anti-authority approach.

Libertarianism at school?

Tony

[studiodekadent]

I am interested in Carol's, Phil's, SD's take on AS Neill, and his concept of education.

I read 'Summerhill' years ago and was quite taken with his 'hands off', anti-authority approach.

Libertarianism at school?

Tony

Until your post I've never before heard of A. S. Neill.

Thanks for informing me about him. What I've read about him is very good. He seems a bit on the 'emotionalist' side but he quite clearly has many, many things right.

A. S. Niell/Maria Montessori synthesis, perhaps?

[anthony]

True, there are exceptions. But the educational establishment as it stands is a rotten mind-control bureaucracy more concerned with 'social adjustment' rather than actual education (teaching people to think accurately and, most critically, independently) and is in grave need of some radical revolutionization (and, in my mind, deserving of some retribution).

Studio,

I was reminded of Neill by your above comment, that could have been taken straight from his text.

He is definitely worth looking in to.

Summerhill, the school, had a dedicated but minority following in England, (1920's, onwards) but I have the sense it was quietly suppressed. Which explains why it's not well known.

Tony

[studiodekadent]

True, there are exceptions. But the educational establishment as it stands is a rotten mind-control bureaucracy more concerned with 'social adjustment' rather than actual education (teaching people to think accurately and, most critically, independently) and is in grave need of some radical revolutionization (and, in my mind, deserving of some retribution).

Studio,

I was reminded of Neill by your above comment, that could have been taken straight from his text.

He is definitely worth looking in to.

Summerhill, the school, had a dedicated but minority following in England, (1920's, onwards) but I have the sense it was quietly suppressed. Which explains why it's not well known.

Tony

Tony,

Thanks for the compliment. From what I've read, Neill is a bit emotionalist, touchy-feely and Freudian and clearly some affinities with the hard left. Then again, Maria Montessori was a Marxist so we can't all be perfect. I have to admit I think Neill is quite correct that the vast majority of 'problems' with children are cured by freedom.

[Xray]

Then again, Maria Montessori was a Marxist so we can't all be perfect.

Maria Montessori was a Marxist? Where does it say that?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read Summerhill ages ago.

I like the removal of authoritarian dogmatism, but I don't care much for replacing it with democracy of children.

I think the underlying philosophy is based on a false dichotomy (kids versus adults as controllers of education). I hold that teaching and learning have to take a lot more into account to be effective. Also, self-discipline has to be taught to some kids. It just doesn't come naturally.

The way the Somerhill system has been working out over the years, it is more suited to creating complacent subjects to be ruled than actually stimulating and satisfying a passion for learning and encouraging students to achieve great things with their lives. Complacency, not challenge and triumph, is the emotional motor driving it.

I think it is a Progressive wet dream if it can be made to work. But I don't think you will find the children of the ruling class going there.

Michael

[caroljane]

I am interested in Carol's, Phil's, SD's take on AS Neill, and his concept of education.

I read 'Summerhill' years ago and was quite taken with his 'hands off', anti-authority approach.

Libertarianism at school?

Tony

Tony, I don't know anything about Neill. I do very much like the Montessori method, I know about it through friends and relatives who are Montessori teachers (and incidentally terrific parents). The only pedagocical theory I have learned is about adult language learning, about which there are a lot of competing theories, and mercifully I have forgotten most of them

Let me take this space to respond to your last about the "self-made soul" about which I have been thinking, but not to much purpose. You posit and "essential/immortal soul" such as I and even Rand apparently think of, but also present a "secular soul" ,self-directed and rational. This strikes me as either semantics or a restatement of the model we agree on: the conscious feeds the subconscious with rational observations, and the subconscious processes them and helps produce rational thought.

What I feel (and think) is that the essential self, the soul, is a whole of which the conscious mind is the expression but the smallest part. Whatever is in my subconscious mind, and whatever in my conscious mind that processes reality, are largely unknown to me in origin, and beyond the ability of my conscious mind to direct or control. Reality, life, the world, the universe, are greater not only than myself but greater than my capability of entirely understanding them, at any given moment. In many ways, I would always have been myself, before I was ever born.

I'm sorry for this impressionistic answer, but you know I am no philosopher or debater. And it's a slow night here: everybody that can get there, is at the movies tonight.

In honour of the opening of Atlas Shrugged, and you, I have purchased a bottle of Cape One Cabernet Sauvignon which is "a blend of wines from South Africa and Canada", not solely because it was on sale ($8.95, a steal!). It is delicious.

[caroljane]

On this theme I wonder if anyone has read Richard Yates' "A Good School" (he wrote Revolutionary Road) or Beth Gutcheon's "Five Fortunes"== wonderful fictional renderings of the best of American private schools.

[studiodekadent]

I read Summerhill ages ago.

I like the removal of authoritarian dogmatism, but I don't care much for replacing it with democracy of children.

I agree with you; it is more important to remove rules than simply let people vote on them. Democracy, after all, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

But be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, self-discipline has to be taught to some kids. It just doesn't come naturally.

I generally disagree. And I think Montessori would too, to a significant extent. Children naturally want to learn. What they DON'T want is to be dragged into what is essentially a jail for children and forced to be members of the clique-packs that roam the halls. They don't want to be drilled like army rats. But the educational establishment has package-dealt "learning" with "being 'socialized' and controlled and having individuality removed" for centuries. This establishment needs to suffer for its crimes.

Even if I were to grant that some kids need authoritarianism, 1) these are usually brutalized products of a monstrous system in the first place that have been mentally warped, 2) they are probably a very small minority, 3) why should the 'saner' children be crushed under the bootheel just because of some idiot-brutes?

The idea that children are uncivilized and need to be repressed and disciplined and moulded into obedient little products to suit society is based on a misanthropic view of human nature (its essentially a bastardization of Freudianism). If it were true, bullying would be greater at less authoritarian schools (like Montessori schools and Summerhill) and lesser at more authoritarian schools. In reality, its the other way around. This is because authoritarian/heirarchical institutions encourage pack-mentality which is the underlying cause of bullying.

That said, I agree with your disagreements about some elements of Summerhill. However, Summerhill's value does need to be acknowledged.