Question for the list. Does anyone else have problems with their
spellcheck? I checked and corrected this post before I sent it and it
came out with my original reservation spelling. I sometimes have to
highlight the entire post to get a reasonable spellcheck and often it will
say that things are OK when they aren't. I am annoyed that this post went
out in this shape to you and you have my apology however, I did spellcheck
it at the time. So am I the only one who can send a post three times and
get an un spellchecked version? NOTE: When I spellchecked this post at
this time, my machine said that the rest of the post was OK even with two
different versions of some words. Maybe Bill Gates can't spell?
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Is inequality good for you?
> 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
>
