This is my third try at getting this on the list. REH
Hi Keith,
Generally, I think I agree with you or maybe the reverse. Perhaps it is
because of the choral model that we both share although your model is
largely volunteer while mine gets paid a wage. But that is not what this
is about, or is it? A few things (highlighted in your post below):
1. This may be true in European cultures but rank in most indigenous
cultures that I know, have to do with skill, leadership and generousity.
If someone does not have those three qualities the structure will not
support a hierarchical grouping. Because freedom to follow the path given
by the Creator is the supreme value, people will not breach that freedom to
enslave others in their group for to do so is to commit a profane act.
2. It is the need to organize i.e. the exercise of power, that is built into
Western languages. Crown Attorney Rupert Ross in his examination of
Ojibwa legal issues (Returning to the Teachings, exploring Aboriginal
Justice, Penquin BKs) found that the judgements built into English
adjectives and nouns did not exist in Algonquin. The same language that
David Peat quoted David Bohm as saying was perfect for Quantum Science.
I have made this point countless times on this list. Refer to my past
posts for the argument.
3. Basic Skills are just that, BASIC. Actually they are as necessary to
creativity as music reading is to singing. It certainly is helpful under
certain kinds of boring, derivative situations but skills develop in the
individual out of need. The only need that most teaching in schools
provides comes from the cane or the power of the grade. Today's children
are so poorly motivated by such thought that they ignore it. They don't
even need it for most service jobs.
As factory jobs that require basic math move to Mexico, the service jobs
that are left are more social than the previous boring factory jobs. The
thousands of cues required by a wealthy person of their assistant, their
cook or their maid are much more complicated and important (to keeping the
job) than the basic skills that the Conservatives venerate. What IS
important is that the employer have those basic skills and can simply
provide them as a kind of judge over the "intelligence" of their employees.
You should experience the kind of rebellion that arises from a Gay
consultant who has those same skills as the employer in addition to their
own expertise. (see attached Gay letter about the military below) The
judgment of the consultant of the employer is withering. IMO complaining
about poor performance on core curriculum makes for great social games but
is not much use otherwise in the lives of the people. Or as one retail
merchant said to my daughter studying her Physics, which she loved, in High
School, "Well, that is one more course that you will never use in real
life!."
Back to theory and music reading. The people who use it are the performers
who must improvise in formulaic styles like pop music and jazz. Most of
the singers and orchestra players in major orchestras have long since
forgotten it through ill use. You should see what happens when a Jazz
composer doesn't write out the notes for major orchestra players. That
does not mean that these Master Musicians are dumb or inept, but simply that
playing the Tschaikovski Violin Concerto doesn't require such things.
(Pianists are a different matter since the theory of chords is required in
the interpretation) In fact even composers on the cutting edge of
Creativity leave many of these things behind much as today's students use
the calculator for basic math.
In the 1970s the Soho composers were in many cases unschooled in basic music
theory and many didn't read music. They were dancers and choreographers
relating music and the elements of sound to physical movement. They used
the technology of sampling to create original and complicated works of art
that changed Western Music and opened the door for musicians like Reich and
Glass to visit other cultures and be open to their knowledge rather than
being trapped in the judgments of English Nouns and Adjectives.
4. Nasty, Brutish and Short may have been true of the Paleolithic. When I
walk around the old colonial headquarters on the Palisades here, short is
certainly what those colonists were. In fact a kind of Hobbit like quality
pervades the area. On the other hand the Dinke in Africa and the Sioux and
Osage here in America are between six and seven feet tall, although
intermarriage has reduced the size of the Sioux except for many of the
women. As for their life spans, they were comparible to the Europeans
and as for Nasty and Brutish that is a little like the "Rape and Pillage" or
"Hunter Gatherer" models. Inventions of severely compromised politicians,
philosophers, businessmen doing business with Indian people and today with
Anthropologists. Those models more resemble the alien European minds that
they sprang from than our cultures here.
My point, is this. There was and is an alternative for the future. But a
person has to give up their stories about the past that created the worst
century for human murder in the history of the human race. At an earlier
time Rousseau understood some of it, from personal experience, when he
encountered and followed the "Foundling" rules of European society and lost
his own children to it. After that he studied the Iroquois and wrote his
alternative educational methods that we still fight about down to the
present on this list. It would help if people had some experience at
teaching children and dealing with the issues that teachers face.
Instead it feels to me that we get opinions that are "Think Tank" oriented
and not grounded in experience. Whether Liberal, Conservative or
"Libertarian" these Ivory Towers all have the same Social Engineering
purpose and Ideal behind their existence. I believe that it is more
political than scientific no matter which group uses the model. I base
this on the fact that I've both trained as a teacher, received a degree in
pedagogy, developed several different educational methods successfully with
different populations to considerable success in the marketplace of
performance in the New York City musical world and have a stable of students
today that are beginning again to enter that world marketplace successfully
again. I document what I do and have from the beginning. I consider
myself to be just as strongly in the empirical tradition as any lab
scientist. The difference being that I have funded my research and borne
the liability when I have failed. Unlike a scientist working with a dog
screaming its head off in pain or a Doctor in an operation, the lungs of
my students either create a future or I lose that future personally. That
was ingrained in my ethics as an undergraduate by my Pedagogy Instructors
who over the years became the most famous in America and the UK. I
accepted their word at the time and it is my personal experience in the
interviening 40 years of work.
As an Impressario in performance, I'm at present developing an international
American Masters Arts Festival Biennial featuring America's composers with
the goal of presenting a different composer every two years for a month of
performances in New York City. 2003 we will honor the 80th birthday of
American Master Ned Rorem. I have performed, taught in both public and
private sectors, given grants and developed art projects, managed careers
and am planning a Network of Chamber Opera Arts Centers across America. I
have worked in this field for 43 years earning a living and developing
projects. I am well acquainted with people who will theorize but who
never put their money where their mouth is choosing to fund and develop a
school or community based upon their beliefs. I have done and do both and
that is the basis of my opinions. As an American Indian I am well aware of
the racist side to the "Nasty, Brutish and Short" argument and am willing to
talk about it but because it has such an effect both politically and
economically on my community it takes a lot of my time to stay objective in
such a discussion. Nasty, Brutish and Short has been and still is an
excuse for tyranny and Artistocracy. Two things that I believe to be an
abomination to the human spirit and will. I do not point fingers on this
but in the cause of civility I ask that we give our experiences as a basis
when we make judgments about such things as whether there is any such thing
as a foundation core curriculum and then define what and why that curriculum
is core and how it fits into the natural learning skills of the child who in
two years breaks the language code no matter how smart or dumb according to
the tests that WE devise, they happen to be. While we are at it, we might
explain why this current fashion of a core curriculum does not build on the
basis of perception, sensory expansion, awareness and physical skills but is
based instead upon the inhabition of such programs.
The fashionable core curriculum actually turns such a natural process, as
exists in the child already, on its head. Nerds before Jocks or we might
say that the perfect mind is Steven Hawking who is not "bothered" by such
other things as pleasure beyond the mind. I don't except that and while I
celebrate Hawkings achievements much as I celebrate the achievement of the
Thalidomide Baritone Thomas Quasthoff, or the baby that learned to climb
steps with its spine since it had no legs or arms. Such activities show
the potential and failings of all we normal folks. We don't consider how
much the simple act of sitting for sixty years or so participates in the
destruction of our spine until we confront a different perspective like that
person who "walks" with their spine. Hawking shows us the same in the
mind. But would you trade your life for him? In fact would most of you
trade your life for the life of a Gell Mann or Noam Chomsky? You would
most certainly have to give up a lot in order to see what they see. How
much would you lose of the preciousness of your identity?
I would suggest a couple of things on dealing with just such issues as the
judgment of English adjectives and nouns. Start by saying instead of:
"that the movie was awful" as if it were something apart from the perceiver,
say that you "felt awful" observing the movie. And separate the
structure, system or form of the movie from the system of your feelings and
experience. If you wish to judge the movie then judge it according to its
success in its own universe and not in yours. Where you "feel awful" may
be "inspirational" to another. A critical judgment is based upon law and
law is a system construct built around common agreements not around an
individual. On the other hand, equal respect for individuals is the root
creativity of every society so there must be a balance between the two. I
believe that English language as it is expressed today, has a problem with
such things. Therapists all over the English world teach people to say "I
feel" and "I think" rather than "it is" as a way of breaking down conflict
between parents and children, husbands and wives, politicians and voters,
priests and congregants etc. What helps us give value to "I feel" and "I
think" is valid rules of experience and objectivity. Today we place
personal experience in the realm of "anecdote" and delete whole individual's
wisdom. That is, I believe, a debate tactic and not a serious rule for
exploration or discussion. I believe this because I was on a debate team
in high school and practiced it daily for several years as my "intramural
sport." Just as bringing the actor's craft into a personal relationship
is psychopathic so is bringing the debate rules into a discussion
pathological. It is, IMO, disrespectful of the various cultural and
familial systems existing between individuals and is based in "winning"
rather than in succeeding. Again that is my not so humble opinion on these
things.
5. As for software, I have made this argument about the schools of the old
Soviet Union several times on this list and been "shot down" so to speak by
those who claim that the Soviet students are slow to creativity and lack
imagination compared to Americans. I think a case can be made that those
students arriving in the US tend to resemble a person fed on few foods for
their entire life encountering a smorgasbord.
In my experience, the psychological problem of cultural breakdown often
makes adults resort in extreme ways to hypersuccess in what they do know as
a way of maintaining mental balance. I have encountered this daily in New
York and that is why I make this judgment. I know also that Russians,
East Indians and others band together, much as American performers do in
Europe, to help each other and outbid American labor for the hi-tech jobs
that are available. This happened at IBM when some members of our
community simply could not compete both in lower fees and in the amount of
knowledge manifested by teams of ex-Communist trained programmers that
immigrated to America. We have the same situation here in the Arts,
although I the Arts seems to be more capable of integrating them than the
American business climate. That is due to the Union and not in spite of
it. Artists are also much better equipped to perform Russian and other
musics on a paar with the immigrants than mono-lingual Americans in other
business or scientific professions. American Artists may not speak
Russian but they "play Russian" better than Russians play Gershwin or jazz.
That evens things out. Remember it is not teachers that destroyed the
ideal of Bi-lingual education but politicians, mono-lingual parents and
provencial folks who were too lazy to learn or give respect to those who
did. A good example of what I referring to was mentioned by John Warfield
in an essay on complexity and education where he told of an American
computer manual written in a 19th century manner that did not fit Americans
and so was sold to Russians who learned both computers and English from it.
Unlike the Musicians, American scientists and engineers, who were not in the
Weber conservative camp of philosophy, could not deal with the Russians
speaking another style of American science and so were at a disadvantage.
This is IMO due to the belief that time is wasted if people learn different
historical styles as is one of the purposes of Art. This type of
intelligent Art is largely destroyed in the US as a profession and has been
replaced with Entertainment and the simplicity of forms that cross time
because they are infantile. Which brings us back to pedagogy and the core
curriculum.
I don't believe that we have seriously contemplated or discussed these
issues as of yet on this list. We are still involved with the elemental
forces of desire and inflow and outgo. I don't believe anyone as of yet
has contemplated Intent and I believe that we are doomed to fail in these
discussions of schools etc. until we deal with those issues. That, of
course, is my opinion and experience.
(6) Something he also doesn't say about those foreign students is that they
all pay money for their education while the Americans need help both in
scholarships and loans.
Regards,
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle American Masters Arts Festival Biennial 2003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:28 AM
Subject: Is inequality good for you?
> In the answers given to the above question in the FT last week in the
> discussion between Michael Prowse (who said No) and Amity Shlaes (who said
> Yes) I found I had a substantial mental reservation in each of the
articles.
>
> In the case of Michael Prowse's article, although he was quite right to
say
> that the earliest human groups were egalitarian to a considerable extent
> (such as sharing food),
(1) he was wrong to suggest that there would have been
> no rank orderings and thus little stress. But strict rank order has been
> found in all primate groups with consequent stress levels in all ranks
> below the top one. What's important is not to try and dissolve rank order
> in some egalitarian nirvana -- because that's impossible --
(2) but to organise
> our institutions with as few levels as possible.
>
> One weak point in Amity Shlaes' article concerned what she saw as the
> benefits of the low quality educational system in America (in that she
said
> it encouraged personal creativity). I though this was a silly point.
>
(3) Teaching basic skills thoroughly doesn't militate against creativity --
> indeed, it's a necessary precursor.
The following letter in today's FT
> concentrates on this weakness on Shlaes' article (and also reinforces the
> point I frequently make on FW that America's economic success is due
mainly
> to the immigration of talented foreignors):
>
> <<<<
> If inequality is good for you, an open door to talent is even better
>
> Sir, The debate between Michael Prowse and Amity Shlaes on the virtues of
> egalitarianism and inequality (FT Weekend, December 7/8), provided a
> fascinating read.
>
> Mr prowse suggests that, in contrast to today's unequal capitalist world,
> for most of human history we had lived in small, egalitarian and
> consensus-driven groups of hunters and gatherers, more equal and happier
> then today as a result. Such arguments are not new and have been mounted
> against modernity for a long time. They tend to paitn an unrealistic
> picture of idyllic tribal existence.
(4) They ignore the fact that an average
> human stood small chance of survival past the age of 30, in large part
> owing to dangers from fellow humans, who resolved issues of relative
status
> with clubs and spears.
Ms Shlaes (whose point of view I generally share)
> gushes at the splendid results that education neglect of American
teenagers
> has for he country's economy, because it supposedly produces creative
> thinkers who translate playing Nintendo into superior software-writing
> skills.
(5) Curious, then, that the US software indsutry is driven largely by
> foreign-born entrepreneurs and computer progrmmers from India, China and
> Russia, where the educational emphasis is on discipline and rigorous
> pursuit of hard sciences.
> The main strength of the US is not benign neglect of its youth; it is its
> openness to top foreign talent, which is allowed to enter and compensate
> for the deficiency of secondary education in the US.Experts agree that US
> secondary schools are inferior to those of many other countries.
(6) However,
> its universities and graduate school draw on the best foreign students.
who
> tend to win admission to these elite schools because of their rigorous
> primary education. Armed with advanced degrees from Columbia, Harvard and
> MIT, they go on to power the US's knowledge economy and drive growth.
>
> Ms Shlaes' argument is better served by lauding US openness to foreign
> talent than by singing the praises of an educational system painfully in
> need of reform.
>
> Batan M. Shklyar,
> Cambridge, MA, US
> >>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Attached letter: REH
Trust Gays More Than Drunks
In response to J. David Galland's article on discharging gay soldiers ("The
War on Terrorism and 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell'," DefenseWatch, Nov. 20,
2002), when I was an Arabic linguist at the Defense Language Institute, I
saw a lot of soldiers who also "exhibited a proclivity for unacceptable and
prohibited conduct" - such as underage drinking, supplying alcohol to
underage soldiers, drinking hard liquor in the barracks, and of course,
screwing in the barracks, often between NCOs and junior enlisted personnel.
None of these individuals was expelled from DLI or the military. They merely
got Article 15s. Despite the highly emotional claims of homosexuality being
"unconducive to military service," I have yet to hear an explanation as to
how private sexual conduct (as opposed to the sort of public sexual
misbehavior so common in the military) renders one more unfit for military
service than, say, someone not disciplined enough to keep booze and women
out of his quarters. Or someone unable to maintain physical readiness.
Personally, I felt much less enthusiastic about serving with the boozehounds
and horndogs in my unit than the homosexual soldiers whom I was aware of,
and who never, to my knowledge, violated any military regulations.
That said, seven of the nine soldiers expelled apparently "outed" themselves
to their superiors, which suggests to me that they simply wanted a quick
ticket out of the military, especially when they realized their
specialization made it likely they were heading towards an imminent war
zone. But if Gamble and Hicks had been a heterosexual couple caught screwing
in the barracks, they'd have received Article 15s and some extra duty for a
couple of weeks, and possibly a reduction in pay grade.
Because they were gay, the response was the usual histrionic fiasco, with
the military looking like idiots.
--David Edelstein
