FURTHER THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION
The passion for teaching and learning has elicited a lively and spirited discussion between AS and myself. It may seem at first glance that we have both strayed from the initial topic in places, but it is nonetheless entertaining and fulfilling (for yours truly, at least) to look back on how this candid conversation has fluidly unraveled. I have found it significant that Steve’s initial essay roused my critical faculties, and yet, in retrospect, as I look back on the entire discussion, I cannot pinpoint any specific claim with which I really disagree. In fact, I believe my vision has been expanded as a result of this discussion. As far as I can tell, we both wholeheartedly agree that students can thrive in both a same-sex and a co-ed educational environment. I also believe that we both would agree that students learn best when subjected to a variety of teaching techniques and attitudes—cross-training if you will. Perhaps it would be of benefit to promote the idea of students participating in BOTH environments at certain points of their scholarly careers. Then again, this idea is bound to open a whole new can of worms, and would most certainly be difficult to implement on a large scale…but I am one of those people who believe that ideas possess value in and of themselves. Thus, I have brought it to the table for reflection, and perhaps for a thrashing. I hesitate somewhat to put this material within the pages of this blog, for a forum is a more likely venue for this matter; but I like the dynamics involved, and I feel the attitudes expressed enrich and reflect the “personality” of the Train to Freedom. Thus the lengthy entries. At any rate, what follows is more of the aforementioned conversation between AS (Steve) and me. I hope you have been enjoying the ride.
In a message dated 4/9/2006 7:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Tops to you AS. Since you have taken the time to write such a detailed response to my commentary on your essay, I feel obliged, in the spirit of friendly banter of course, to reciprocate.
Hey Todd,
Thanks. I enjoy our conversations.
In truth, I have nothing to rebut, although I do have a couple of questions, qualifications, and elaborations...for the sake of clarification. First off, by "diversity" I simply mean "variety", more specifically as it refers to differences in people and personalities. Certainly all words to some degree derive their meanings through the eyes of the beholders, but I do think that most would agree that men and women are fundamentally "different" in many aspects (if we didn't assume this ab initio, this discussion would not be unfolding), and therefore, eliminating women entirely from a milieu is necessarily eliminating a significant source of "diversity". Don't get me wrong though. I do understand what you are saying about diversity being a difficult term to pin down, for certainly one cannot meaningfully "quantify" "diverse" characteristics that exist amongst individuals.
Thanks for the clarifications, Todd. I was concerned about the views of people who take words like "diversity" and turn them into an ideology, to be achieved at all costs. You're clearly not talking about that.
My main contention is that, owing to the fact that approximately half of the world population is comprised of women, it generally behooves men to be exposed to their ways of viewing the world, which, as I asserted before, tend to be fundamentally different in many respects from those of their counterparts (for better or for worse, I might add). I believe, that in the main, a school environment should be as representative as possible of the larger global "population" in regard to gender and cultural "diversity". (An all-boys school over represents the y-chromosome!)
I want to look at what is effective. If boys and girls do, indeed, learn differently, then I see great value in appreciating and serving those varying styles of learning. I see sufficient evidence of sex-based differences in learning approaches to warrant increased educational opportunities. Merely putting children, young adults, or even older adults together in an environment to facilitate exposure to differences in others' ways of viewing the world does not seem helpful to me when much of what is at stake appears to be the development of the very cognitive faculties needed to perceive and appreciate those differences!
Here's another way to look at it. Assume that girls and boys do learn differently and that awareness and accommodation of those differences allow many students to achieve their full academic potential. Here are some links that provide some of the evidence for this assumption, from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE).
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-brain.htm
(brain differences)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-learning.htm
(learning style differences)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm
(single-sex compared to co-educational schools)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forgirls.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for girls)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forboys.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for boys)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-equity.htm
"Computers, Brains, and Gender Equity" essay)
(Of course, the NASSPE is an organization with an agenda. However, one can easily examine the sources behind their claims, so, at least for purposes of forming a reasonable assumption, I am confident to use their summations of the data.)
One question I have for you is "What compelled you to choose an all-boys school?" I raise this question because in general, I agree with you that educational options should be available, and I agree with you that people learn differently in different environments. However, it makes sense to me that a compelling reason should exist before a student should deviate from the norm, so to speak. For example, in the case that a bright boy continues to neglect his studies in a conventional co-ed school and ascribes the motives behind his slack to an attraction to girls, then perhaps it is best for that boy to attend an all-boys school as an experiment. Or perhaps he should try a study-at-home protocol...or whatever. The point I am attempting to make is that I believes options should exist, but conventions should at first be attempted. After all, one has to start somewhere. Why not with the "conventional" approach? If it doesn't seem to work, THEN there is a compelling reason to change and try something a bit more unorthodox.
To answer in somewhat reverse order, I think the conventions are first being attempted and the conventions are the starting point. The same-sex movement is exploring alternatives to co-educational models as a response to difficulties many students have in a "conventional" educational environment. I think this approach allows plenty of room for variation and gives us more freedom than does a "one-size-fits-all" model that seems to have its own challenges.
As for me, having the opportunity to attend my school was a blessing. My parents chose my school for the more strict disciplinary environment and wider opportunity of course offerings than were available in co-educational public schools. I chose my school because of what I considered a greater educational opportunity, an positive attention to boys (who, in my elementary school years, seemed kind of like second-class citizens in the classroom), broader range of elective courses and the opportunity for technical education at the high school level, greater sports opportunities (both interscholastic and intramural), and larger number of extracurricular activities.
In a nutshell, those are the reasons. Could those things have been achieved by an overhaul of the Chicago public schools? Sure. However, if I can go get my dinner from my local supermarket, or go to the zoo and fight the biggest lion for his or her dinner, which do you think I'm gonna do?
You have mentioned your cousin and her experience with mathematics. This is a particularly interesting point, and it is in fact one that ties with some of my former comments about boys and girls being "fundamentally" different in various respects. Indeed, studies continue to show that boys outscore girls in mathematic and "science" skills. Girls, on the other hand, tend to outscore boys in reading and writing skills, and they show a greater degree of "emotional intelligence". I do believe that the educational environment and self-fulfilling prophecies have a lot to do with these findings.
I agree, there can be an element of self-fulfilling prophecies here.
However, I do not intuitively believe that the way to enhance a girl's math skills or to enhance a boy's language skills is to isolate boys from girls. In fact, I believe that the opposite approach should be taken. Interactive learning is a great conduit for higher education, and I believe that boy students should be working in conjunction with girl students in learning and teaching roles. The idea here is cooperative learning and teaching. Your cousin feared competition with boys in mathematics, at least that is how it appears to boil down. An educational system should be set up to dilute this fear by endorsing cooperation. If one thinks about it, there is really no sound reason why the aforementioned statistics should exist. Mathematics is really nothing more than a type of language, and the converse is also true (of course)--language behaves very "mathematically". It is not correct to say that mathematics is "analytical" and language is "creative" or "intuitive". The fact is that mathematics, at its heart, is creative and expressive. Of course it is also analytical. Likewise, reading and writing are creative and expressive, but they can also be subjected to analysis and "scientific" scrutiny. If boys and girls can work TOGETHER, they could all benefit tremendously. In the process, they would be obtaining a great deal of "emotional intelligence". What is the "teacher's" role in all of this? Well, pretty much the usual--guidance and supervision. But he or she should inspire the overarching notion that deep learning and understanding is greatly enhanced through the act of teaching itself. Therefore, it behooves the "students" to play the role of "teachers" to each other.
You're talking about the interbeing of learning. Teaching and learning inter-are. Again, I agree. However, there can be many paths to learning, many dharma doors, if you will.
In this way, you create a microcosm for many of my "Utopian" ideals--which brings me to my final question (oooo--at long last!). Why does the idea of "Utopia" scare you? I think we all have our ideas of a sort of "Utopia". I think it is "hardwired" in our neurons, so to speak, to think of how our ideal world would be. It's basically just our own perspectives of heaven, I suppose. At least, that is how I meant it. I didn't necessarily mean it to be in keeping with the St. Thomas Moore's original.
I think I was getting caught up in the terminology of "Utopia." My fears result from situations that try to achieve some sort of "Utopia" through merely changing a few things on the surface of society without penetrating to the root causes of why things are the way they are. I see tremendous potential for ideologically-driven abuses, but that's just me.
Well Bro, I think that pretty much covers everything for now. Oh yes--somebody should press charges against R. Mayweather. That behavior is just criminally stupid. At least the gloved combatants seemed to make amends after the show. Take care Ace. Hit me whenever. Pax tibi sit.
Todd R.
Yes, making amends is a good first step. Thanks for your ideas. You're helping me understand the bases of my own views more completely and are persuading me of the validity of my position even more than I had persuaded myself. hehe
Now where did I put those gloves? We're gonna need 'em, friend! :-)
All the best to you, too, Todd!
Steve
Hey there Buddy. As usual, I am always (well, usually) up for a spirited debate amongst good sports who appreciate intellectual honesty above all--and I DO believe that is true of you. But, the funny thing is, I do not see any specific point where we are clearly at odds. Perhaps we would be at odds in this hypothetical extreme case--an extreme that I feel both of us would adamantly oppose--but an extreme hypothetical case that may give us both some insight into where we stand in relation to each other in this discussion. Let us for kicks suppose that an election is to be held tomorrow on issue X. If issue X passes, ALL schools, from here on out are co-ed. If issue X "fails", all schools, from here on out, are single-sex. Now, if I HAD to vote in one direction or the other (a true dichotomy), I would vote FOR issue X. The primary reason for my vote would be because I would view a "no" vote on issue X as a vote for segregation. In short, I am sure that if one tries hard enough, he or she can find "scientific evidence" that supports the theory that blacks learn differently from whites, Hispanics learn differently from Russians, Indians learn differently from Israelis, etc. Perhaps they do. But I believe that it would be clearly wrong to segregate people on the basis of these "scientific findings"--even if they were "true". (And on that, I really don't believe it possible to "prove" this kind of stuff. It ultimately will always come down to rhetoric, cherry picking, and spin-doctoring.) In many ways, this smacks of somewhat watered down Nazism (Don't worry Bro, I'm not calling you a Nazi!). I believe it would also become a breeding ground for gang mentality. Anyway, in summary, I guess my primary point here is that if we cast our votes differently, then it could be that we have located a fundamental sticking point--and it could be an impasse at that point, because, although I am always willing to hear out counterpoints, I can not presently see myself changing my vote...I am pretty steadfast on that. On the other hand, if we both cast our votes with like mind, then I don't see any substantial difference in our views. You know my vote Bro! It's up to you to decide if this is a debate or merely a stimulating conversation! Looking forward to the final tally! Namaste!
Todd R.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one because I feel this discussion is rapidly reaching a point of diminishing returns.
For the record, we can't compare different ethnic groups or "races" (use of quotation marks there is intentional because I have a lot of problems with that term) in the same way that we compare men and women and girls and boys. Specifically, I am unaware of *any* difference between "races" or "ethnic groups" that is even remotely comparable to the differences between men and women, many of them genetically based.
I don't accept your claim about quasi-Nazism, although I don't take any personal offense from your use of the term here. However, I don't see much value in continuing the discussion beyond this point, since as you have said, the amount of disagreement here is fairly limited.
I do hope you will continue updating Train to Freedom because I enjoy reading it.
Peace,
Steve
In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:46:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Me again AS.
Yo!
Now come on, do you REALLY think I would be who I am today if I let you go THAT easily? HA! (Who am I, really?)
Well, of course you would / would not!
Seriously though, I do feel the need to clarify a couple of points further, lest I be misunderstood. (If anybody is going to misunderstand me, dammit, it's going to be me!)
OK, if you insist. Hehe
First, I want to vehemently stress that I am NOT calling YOUR views quasi-Nazism.
I didn't think you were calling my views quasi-nazism, not at all.
I do believe that one can, without too much of a stretch, draw comparisons between EXTREME mandatory gender division and Nazism, but then again, I believe that anything taken to such an EXTREME can be argued as "Nazism", or at least, by definition, "fanaticism".
Yes. The operative word here is "extreme."
Having agreed thus far, I must make at least one more point. (See how this goes! )
For one thing, extreme gender inclusion, where such inclusion may harm the persons included, can also be regarded as "Nazism," or as you suggested, "fanaticism."
Anyway, from everything you have stated, it is poignantly clear that you do NOT favor an extreme stance, and therefore, I am certainly not arguing that YOUR views are in keeping with quasi-Nazism.
Indeed.
Furthermore, let it be known that I, like yourself, do not truly believe in this thing commonly (and ignorantly) referred to as "race". When put under the microscope, this "thing" or "essence" we call "race" quickly vanishes.
The challenge, of course, is to make sure that the lenses of this metaphorical microscope are clear, unclouded. If not, just like an annoying left jab kept firmly in the face of a hapless opponent, dirty or scratched lenses can prevent us from seeing accurately.
(Methinks it's too early in the morning for such a maladroit mixed metaphor. I tried to save it with a wee bit of alliteration.)
Now, what I do call into question is whether, if we really, truly put this "thing" or "essence" of "gender difference" under the microscope, will it also vanish? Prima facie, I realize the absurdity of this question. But, when we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact "genderless"?
If we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact the elementary particle or wave? Are we not pure energy? Or matter and energy alternating their states?
We have manifested in the physical universe with bodies. Those bodies are at once a source of sorrow and of joy. I don't see the solution as getting rid of our bodies. As such, I disagree somewhat with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who said, "We are spiritual beings having a physical experience." While one can easily say that, one can also easily say that we are physical beings having a spiritual experience. Similarly, we are emotional beings having a mental experience. In fact, we could articulate many kinds of experiences by considering all the permutations of our m attributes (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, environmental) taken n at a time.
The reason I am not fond of such an approach is simply that we are multifaceted beings. We are at once body, mind, emotions, spirit, interactions with other beings and the environment at large. To me, realizing and embracing our true nature means consciously to know and experience all of these aspects of ourselves, more or less in relative balance, most of the time. There may be times when we must emphasize one aspect, such as when we have a major project at work that consumes our time and attention. However, over the long haul, if we do not have a relative balance, we create dis-ease and dis-content for ourselves.
Moreover, we manifest in both the historical and ultimate dimensions simultaneous. In the historical dimension, we have birth, death, coming, going, being, nonbeing, same, different, male, female, and all sorts of other dualistic phenomena. However, in the ultimate dimension, which some call "God," "Nirvana," the "Tao," and so forth, we are one with all that is; we have never been born and we can never die. In the historical dimension, we are waves, while in the ultimate dimension, we are water or ocean.
I think we do, and I think we can in turn draw a conclusion that THIS realization may just be the absolute pinnacle of "higher" education. Now for the ever-present (yet ever-changing...huh?) paradox: it doesn't really matter which type of school one attends--same-sex or co-ed. Is that any kind of an answer? Of course not. It just begs the question: What type of school environment is most likely to foster this ultimate epiphany?
Consciousness, baby! It's all about consciousness.
Hey, does this qualify as a koan? First and Final word: Mu.
Metta
Todd R.
That's nicely signed. Thanks. With metta, you cannot go wrong.
Let me close with my own variation on the self-directed lovingkindness meditation.
I deserve to live in safety.
I deserve to be healthy.
I deserve to be happy.
I deserve to be prosperous.
I deserve to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I deserve to live with ease.
I am willing to live in safety.
I am willing to be healthy.
I am willing to be happy.
I am willing to be prosperous.
I am willing to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I am willing to live with ease.
May I live in safety.
May I be healthy.
May I be happy.
May I be prosperous.
May I abide in the brahmaviharas.
May I live with ease.
Have a great day!
Steve (aka AS)
Keep punching!
In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:51:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
PS--I found INFINITE value in continuation of this discussion! Seek, and you will find! Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....!
Todd R.
All right now AS--NOW I have you! Correct me if I'm wrong (figure of speech of course--I'm never wrong!), but you explicitly stated that (well, in truth I paraphrase) further discussion on this topic would be pointless and that we were quickly heading down the path of diminishing returns. Well, if we in fact did not pursue this a bit further, you would not have composed this absolutely brilliant response--and I mean that sincerely. The analysis and the expression of the ideas involved are superb, and I hope that you will consider inserting these insights into your book if you have not already done so. Of course, if one was so inclined, he or she could take issue that "spiritual", "emotional", "physical", etc. cannot be truly isolated and viewed independently from one another (sort of like electricity and magnetism can not be isolated). However, I believe a rational counterargument to that position would be that to articulate ANY idea necessitates the a priori assumption of independent "ideas" and "energies", even though at SOME "level" of "reality" (the "ultimate" level) this is an erroneous assumption (This is that). The fact is that in order to articulate these kinds of ideas effectively, one must compose words in such a way as that meaning can be derive BETWEEN the words themselves. That is the art and the craft at stake here. In my opinion, you have done that spectacularly. I must admit that I do like and agree with the notion that we are indeed spiritual beings having a human experience. I remember well the flash of insight when I first heard those words and reflected on them. They were EXTREMELY (fanatically ?) influential upon me, and caused me to drastically change the way I viewed reality. However, as you have so well pointed out, as one proceeds further on the journey (metaphorically speaking, I suppose), he or she comes to find (rather quickly, I might add) that things are not NEARLY that simple! I think one of the most challenging things to come to grips with is that the more we "learn" about "ourselves", the more exponentially complex, or multifaceted, we become. This is when we determine for ourselves that knowing "all" of "ourselves" is an exercise in futility (this actually hearkens me back to the uncertainty principle)...so we need not strive. Rather, we should take refuge in the journey itself, taking snapshots along the way. Well, I had better bail from this one while I have a chance! Your words above prompted a rush of thoughts, so I'm just rambling away here! I hope I haven't totally jumped the tracks! Take care AS. Appreciate the exhilaration! Shanti.
Todd R.
Cynicism lacks any real conviction. It doesn’t like the game as it’s being played, and so it spoils it. At bottom, cynicism is a cheap and shoddy response to a life we are afraid to love because it might, for a time, be painful. -- Julia Cameron, from The Sound of Paper
The passion for teaching and learning has elicited a lively and spirited discussion between AS and myself. It may seem at first glance that we have both strayed from the initial topic in places, but it is nonetheless entertaining and fulfilling (for yours truly, at least) to look back on how this candid conversation has fluidly unraveled. I have found it significant that Steve’s initial essay roused my critical faculties, and yet, in retrospect, as I look back on the entire discussion, I cannot pinpoint any specific claim with which I really disagree. In fact, I believe my vision has been expanded as a result of this discussion. As far as I can tell, we both wholeheartedly agree that students can thrive in both a same-sex and a co-ed educational environment. I also believe that we both would agree that students learn best when subjected to a variety of teaching techniques and attitudes—cross-training if you will. Perhaps it would be of benefit to promote the idea of students participating in BOTH environments at certain points of their scholarly careers. Then again, this idea is bound to open a whole new can of worms, and would most certainly be difficult to implement on a large scale…but I am one of those people who believe that ideas possess value in and of themselves. Thus, I have brought it to the table for reflection, and perhaps for a thrashing. I hesitate somewhat to put this material within the pages of this blog, for a forum is a more likely venue for this matter; but I like the dynamics involved, and I feel the attitudes expressed enrich and reflect the “personality” of the Train to Freedom. Thus the lengthy entries. At any rate, what follows is more of the aforementioned conversation between AS (Steve) and me. I hope you have been enjoying the ride.
In a message dated 4/9/2006 7:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Tops to you AS. Since you have taken the time to write such a detailed response to my commentary on your essay, I feel obliged, in the spirit of friendly banter of course, to reciprocate.
Hey Todd,
Thanks. I enjoy our conversations.
In truth, I have nothing to rebut, although I do have a couple of questions, qualifications, and elaborations...for the sake of clarification. First off, by "diversity" I simply mean "variety", more specifically as it refers to differences in people and personalities. Certainly all words to some degree derive their meanings through the eyes of the beholders, but I do think that most would agree that men and women are fundamentally "different" in many aspects (if we didn't assume this ab initio, this discussion would not be unfolding), and therefore, eliminating women entirely from a milieu is necessarily eliminating a significant source of "diversity". Don't get me wrong though. I do understand what you are saying about diversity being a difficult term to pin down, for certainly one cannot meaningfully "quantify" "diverse" characteristics that exist amongst individuals.
Thanks for the clarifications, Todd. I was concerned about the views of people who take words like "diversity" and turn them into an ideology, to be achieved at all costs. You're clearly not talking about that.
My main contention is that, owing to the fact that approximately half of the world population is comprised of women, it generally behooves men to be exposed to their ways of viewing the world, which, as I asserted before, tend to be fundamentally different in many respects from those of their counterparts (for better or for worse, I might add). I believe, that in the main, a school environment should be as representative as possible of the larger global "population" in regard to gender and cultural "diversity". (An all-boys school over represents the y-chromosome!)
I want to look at what is effective. If boys and girls do, indeed, learn differently, then I see great value in appreciating and serving those varying styles of learning. I see sufficient evidence of sex-based differences in learning approaches to warrant increased educational opportunities. Merely putting children, young adults, or even older adults together in an environment to facilitate exposure to differences in others' ways of viewing the world does not seem helpful to me when much of what is at stake appears to be the development of the very cognitive faculties needed to perceive and appreciate those differences!
Here's another way to look at it. Assume that girls and boys do learn differently and that awareness and accommodation of those differences allow many students to achieve their full academic potential. Here are some links that provide some of the evidence for this assumption, from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE).
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-brain.htm
(brain differences)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-learning.htm
(learning style differences)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm
(single-sex compared to co-educational schools)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forgirls.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for girls)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forboys.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for boys)
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-equity.htm
"Computers, Brains, and Gender Equity" essay)
(Of course, the NASSPE is an organization with an agenda. However, one can easily examine the sources behind their claims, so, at least for purposes of forming a reasonable assumption, I am confident to use their summations of the data.)
One question I have for you is "What compelled you to choose an all-boys school?" I raise this question because in general, I agree with you that educational options should be available, and I agree with you that people learn differently in different environments. However, it makes sense to me that a compelling reason should exist before a student should deviate from the norm, so to speak. For example, in the case that a bright boy continues to neglect his studies in a conventional co-ed school and ascribes the motives behind his slack to an attraction to girls, then perhaps it is best for that boy to attend an all-boys school as an experiment. Or perhaps he should try a study-at-home protocol...or whatever. The point I am attempting to make is that I believes options should exist, but conventions should at first be attempted. After all, one has to start somewhere. Why not with the "conventional" approach? If it doesn't seem to work, THEN there is a compelling reason to change and try something a bit more unorthodox.
To answer in somewhat reverse order, I think the conventions are first being attempted and the conventions are the starting point. The same-sex movement is exploring alternatives to co-educational models as a response to difficulties many students have in a "conventional" educational environment. I think this approach allows plenty of room for variation and gives us more freedom than does a "one-size-fits-all" model that seems to have its own challenges.
As for me, having the opportunity to attend my school was a blessing. My parents chose my school for the more strict disciplinary environment and wider opportunity of course offerings than were available in co-educational public schools. I chose my school because of what I considered a greater educational opportunity, an positive attention to boys (who, in my elementary school years, seemed kind of like second-class citizens in the classroom), broader range of elective courses and the opportunity for technical education at the high school level, greater sports opportunities (both interscholastic and intramural), and larger number of extracurricular activities.
In a nutshell, those are the reasons. Could those things have been achieved by an overhaul of the Chicago public schools? Sure. However, if I can go get my dinner from my local supermarket, or go to the zoo and fight the biggest lion for his or her dinner, which do you think I'm gonna do?
You have mentioned your cousin and her experience with mathematics. This is a particularly interesting point, and it is in fact one that ties with some of my former comments about boys and girls being "fundamentally" different in various respects. Indeed, studies continue to show that boys outscore girls in mathematic and "science" skills. Girls, on the other hand, tend to outscore boys in reading and writing skills, and they show a greater degree of "emotional intelligence". I do believe that the educational environment and self-fulfilling prophecies have a lot to do with these findings.
I agree, there can be an element of self-fulfilling prophecies here.
However, I do not intuitively believe that the way to enhance a girl's math skills or to enhance a boy's language skills is to isolate boys from girls. In fact, I believe that the opposite approach should be taken. Interactive learning is a great conduit for higher education, and I believe that boy students should be working in conjunction with girl students in learning and teaching roles. The idea here is cooperative learning and teaching. Your cousin feared competition with boys in mathematics, at least that is how it appears to boil down. An educational system should be set up to dilute this fear by endorsing cooperation. If one thinks about it, there is really no sound reason why the aforementioned statistics should exist. Mathematics is really nothing more than a type of language, and the converse is also true (of course)--language behaves very "mathematically". It is not correct to say that mathematics is "analytical" and language is "creative" or "intuitive". The fact is that mathematics, at its heart, is creative and expressive. Of course it is also analytical. Likewise, reading and writing are creative and expressive, but they can also be subjected to analysis and "scientific" scrutiny. If boys and girls can work TOGETHER, they could all benefit tremendously. In the process, they would be obtaining a great deal of "emotional intelligence". What is the "teacher's" role in all of this? Well, pretty much the usual--guidance and supervision. But he or she should inspire the overarching notion that deep learning and understanding is greatly enhanced through the act of teaching itself. Therefore, it behooves the "students" to play the role of "teachers" to each other.
You're talking about the interbeing of learning. Teaching and learning inter-are. Again, I agree. However, there can be many paths to learning, many dharma doors, if you will.
In this way, you create a microcosm for many of my "Utopian" ideals--which brings me to my final question (oooo--at long last!). Why does the idea of "Utopia" scare you? I think we all have our ideas of a sort of "Utopia". I think it is "hardwired" in our neurons, so to speak, to think of how our ideal world would be. It's basically just our own perspectives of heaven, I suppose. At least, that is how I meant it. I didn't necessarily mean it to be in keeping with the St. Thomas Moore's original.
I think I was getting caught up in the terminology of "Utopia." My fears result from situations that try to achieve some sort of "Utopia" through merely changing a few things on the surface of society without penetrating to the root causes of why things are the way they are. I see tremendous potential for ideologically-driven abuses, but that's just me.
Well Bro, I think that pretty much covers everything for now. Oh yes--somebody should press charges against R. Mayweather. That behavior is just criminally stupid. At least the gloved combatants seemed to make amends after the show. Take care Ace. Hit me whenever. Pax tibi sit.
Todd R.
Yes, making amends is a good first step. Thanks for your ideas. You're helping me understand the bases of my own views more completely and are persuading me of the validity of my position even more than I had persuaded myself. hehe
Now where did I put those gloves? We're gonna need 'em, friend! :-)
All the best to you, too, Todd!
Steve
Hey there Buddy. As usual, I am always (well, usually) up for a spirited debate amongst good sports who appreciate intellectual honesty above all--and I DO believe that is true of you. But, the funny thing is, I do not see any specific point where we are clearly at odds. Perhaps we would be at odds in this hypothetical extreme case--an extreme that I feel both of us would adamantly oppose--but an extreme hypothetical case that may give us both some insight into where we stand in relation to each other in this discussion. Let us for kicks suppose that an election is to be held tomorrow on issue X. If issue X passes, ALL schools, from here on out are co-ed. If issue X "fails", all schools, from here on out, are single-sex. Now, if I HAD to vote in one direction or the other (a true dichotomy), I would vote FOR issue X. The primary reason for my vote would be because I would view a "no" vote on issue X as a vote for segregation. In short, I am sure that if one tries hard enough, he or she can find "scientific evidence" that supports the theory that blacks learn differently from whites, Hispanics learn differently from Russians, Indians learn differently from Israelis, etc. Perhaps they do. But I believe that it would be clearly wrong to segregate people on the basis of these "scientific findings"--even if they were "true". (And on that, I really don't believe it possible to "prove" this kind of stuff. It ultimately will always come down to rhetoric, cherry picking, and spin-doctoring.) In many ways, this smacks of somewhat watered down Nazism (Don't worry Bro, I'm not calling you a Nazi!). I believe it would also become a breeding ground for gang mentality. Anyway, in summary, I guess my primary point here is that if we cast our votes differently, then it could be that we have located a fundamental sticking point--and it could be an impasse at that point, because, although I am always willing to hear out counterpoints, I can not presently see myself changing my vote...I am pretty steadfast on that. On the other hand, if we both cast our votes with like mind, then I don't see any substantial difference in our views. You know my vote Bro! It's up to you to decide if this is a debate or merely a stimulating conversation! Looking forward to the final tally! Namaste!
Todd R.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one because I feel this discussion is rapidly reaching a point of diminishing returns.
For the record, we can't compare different ethnic groups or "races" (use of quotation marks there is intentional because I have a lot of problems with that term) in the same way that we compare men and women and girls and boys. Specifically, I am unaware of *any* difference between "races" or "ethnic groups" that is even remotely comparable to the differences between men and women, many of them genetically based.
I don't accept your claim about quasi-Nazism, although I don't take any personal offense from your use of the term here. However, I don't see much value in continuing the discussion beyond this point, since as you have said, the amount of disagreement here is fairly limited.
I do hope you will continue updating Train to Freedom because I enjoy reading it.
Peace,
Steve
In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:46:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Me again AS.
Yo!
Now come on, do you REALLY think I would be who I am today if I let you go THAT easily? HA! (Who am I, really?)
Well, of course you would / would not!
Seriously though, I do feel the need to clarify a couple of points further, lest I be misunderstood. (If anybody is going to misunderstand me, dammit, it's going to be me!)
OK, if you insist. Hehe
First, I want to vehemently stress that I am NOT calling YOUR views quasi-Nazism.
I didn't think you were calling my views quasi-nazism, not at all.
I do believe that one can, without too much of a stretch, draw comparisons between EXTREME mandatory gender division and Nazism, but then again, I believe that anything taken to such an EXTREME can be argued as "Nazism", or at least, by definition, "fanaticism".
Yes. The operative word here is "extreme."
Having agreed thus far, I must make at least one more point. (See how this goes! )
For one thing, extreme gender inclusion, where such inclusion may harm the persons included, can also be regarded as "Nazism," or as you suggested, "fanaticism."
Anyway, from everything you have stated, it is poignantly clear that you do NOT favor an extreme stance, and therefore, I am certainly not arguing that YOUR views are in keeping with quasi-Nazism.
Indeed.
Furthermore, let it be known that I, like yourself, do not truly believe in this thing commonly (and ignorantly) referred to as "race". When put under the microscope, this "thing" or "essence" we call "race" quickly vanishes.
The challenge, of course, is to make sure that the lenses of this metaphorical microscope are clear, unclouded. If not, just like an annoying left jab kept firmly in the face of a hapless opponent, dirty or scratched lenses can prevent us from seeing accurately.
(Methinks it's too early in the morning for such a maladroit mixed metaphor. I tried to save it with a wee bit of alliteration.)
Now, what I do call into question is whether, if we really, truly put this "thing" or "essence" of "gender difference" under the microscope, will it also vanish? Prima facie, I realize the absurdity of this question. But, when we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact "genderless"?
If we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact the elementary particle or wave? Are we not pure energy? Or matter and energy alternating their states?
We have manifested in the physical universe with bodies. Those bodies are at once a source of sorrow and of joy. I don't see the solution as getting rid of our bodies. As such, I disagree somewhat with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who said, "We are spiritual beings having a physical experience." While one can easily say that, one can also easily say that we are physical beings having a spiritual experience. Similarly, we are emotional beings having a mental experience. In fact, we could articulate many kinds of experiences by considering all the permutations of our m attributes (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, environmental) taken n at a time.
The reason I am not fond of such an approach is simply that we are multifaceted beings. We are at once body, mind, emotions, spirit, interactions with other beings and the environment at large. To me, realizing and embracing our true nature means consciously to know and experience all of these aspects of ourselves, more or less in relative balance, most of the time. There may be times when we must emphasize one aspect, such as when we have a major project at work that consumes our time and attention. However, over the long haul, if we do not have a relative balance, we create dis-ease and dis-content for ourselves.
Moreover, we manifest in both the historical and ultimate dimensions simultaneous. In the historical dimension, we have birth, death, coming, going, being, nonbeing, same, different, male, female, and all sorts of other dualistic phenomena. However, in the ultimate dimension, which some call "God," "Nirvana," the "Tao," and so forth, we are one with all that is; we have never been born and we can never die. In the historical dimension, we are waves, while in the ultimate dimension, we are water or ocean.
I think we do, and I think we can in turn draw a conclusion that THIS realization may just be the absolute pinnacle of "higher" education. Now for the ever-present (yet ever-changing...huh?) paradox: it doesn't really matter which type of school one attends--same-sex or co-ed. Is that any kind of an answer? Of course not. It just begs the question: What type of school environment is most likely to foster this ultimate epiphany?
Consciousness, baby! It's all about consciousness.
Hey, does this qualify as a koan? First and Final word: Mu.
Metta
Todd R.
That's nicely signed. Thanks. With metta, you cannot go wrong.
Let me close with my own variation on the self-directed lovingkindness meditation.
I deserve to live in safety.
I deserve to be healthy.
I deserve to be happy.
I deserve to be prosperous.
I deserve to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I deserve to live with ease.
I am willing to live in safety.
I am willing to be healthy.
I am willing to be happy.
I am willing to be prosperous.
I am willing to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I am willing to live with ease.
May I live in safety.
May I be healthy.
May I be happy.
May I be prosperous.
May I abide in the brahmaviharas.
May I live with ease.
Have a great day!
Steve (aka AS)
Keep punching!
In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:51:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
PS--I found INFINITE value in continuation of this discussion! Seek, and you will find! Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....!
Todd R.
All right now AS--NOW I have you! Correct me if I'm wrong (figure of speech of course--I'm never wrong!), but you explicitly stated that (well, in truth I paraphrase) further discussion on this topic would be pointless and that we were quickly heading down the path of diminishing returns. Well, if we in fact did not pursue this a bit further, you would not have composed this absolutely brilliant response--and I mean that sincerely. The analysis and the expression of the ideas involved are superb, and I hope that you will consider inserting these insights into your book if you have not already done so. Of course, if one was so inclined, he or she could take issue that "spiritual", "emotional", "physical", etc. cannot be truly isolated and viewed independently from one another (sort of like electricity and magnetism can not be isolated). However, I believe a rational counterargument to that position would be that to articulate ANY idea necessitates the a priori assumption of independent "ideas" and "energies", even though at SOME "level" of "reality" (the "ultimate" level) this is an erroneous assumption (This is that). The fact is that in order to articulate these kinds of ideas effectively, one must compose words in such a way as that meaning can be derive BETWEEN the words themselves. That is the art and the craft at stake here. In my opinion, you have done that spectacularly. I must admit that I do like and agree with the notion that we are indeed spiritual beings having a human experience. I remember well the flash of insight when I first heard those words and reflected on them. They were EXTREMELY (fanatically ?) influential upon me, and caused me to drastically change the way I viewed reality. However, as you have so well pointed out, as one proceeds further on the journey (metaphorically speaking, I suppose), he or she comes to find (rather quickly, I might add) that things are not NEARLY that simple! I think one of the most challenging things to come to grips with is that the more we "learn" about "ourselves", the more exponentially complex, or multifaceted, we become. This is when we determine for ourselves that knowing "all" of "ourselves" is an exercise in futility (this actually hearkens me back to the uncertainty principle)...so we need not strive. Rather, we should take refuge in the journey itself, taking snapshots along the way. Well, I had better bail from this one while I have a chance! Your words above prompted a rush of thoughts, so I'm just rambling away here! I hope I haven't totally jumped the tracks! Take care AS. Appreciate the exhilaration! Shanti.
Todd R.
Cynicism lacks any real conviction. It doesn’t like the game as it’s being played, and so it spoils it. At bottom, cynicism is a cheap and shoddy response to a life we are afraid to love because it might, for a time, be painful. -- Julia Cameron, from The Sound of Paper
posted by Todd Reinhard at 1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home