From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 19:10:55 GMT
Platt, Scott, All,
Scott wrote:
> What is true, though, is that no one can
> > argue either for ID or for the belief that chance and natural selection are
> > sufficient, based on clear, scientific evidence. So both should be
> > relegated to a philosophical discussion on evolution, and neither should be
> > taught as science.
>
Platt responded:
>Now that's something that never occurred to me, no doubt because I've been
>overwhelmed by science's pervasive propaganda that searching for
>mechanisms and using measurements is the only legitimate way to establish
>true knowledge. But now that Scott has put evolution theory in proper
>perspective, my belief that the theory fails as a complete explanation by
>science's own standards has been further justified. Of course, Pirsig also
>got me to thinking along those lines some time ago.
And again, if this was the intent, you'd have little opposition from your
so-called "liberal academics". Most I know (at the university level) would
very much like a critical thinking, metaphysics course (indeed, courses
each year of the curriculum) to be offered. You would also foster
cross-cultural competence when you'd offer non-western, non-occidental
approaches to this area of thought. Here comes into play comparative
mythologies, and students could learn about esoteric and exoteric
interpretation of world myths and metaphysics.
The would be exposed to Kabbalastic and Gnostic interprestations of
Intelligent Design, learn the creation accounts of the Inuit and the Maori.
They would learn, as they examined occidental creation stories, that these
stories are everywhere at once culturally determined. That no one "creation
story" is superior, that the "intelligence" behind the design is described
just as legitimately by the Mahayana Buddhists as the tribes of Israel, and
just as epically in the Icelandic sagas and the Aboriginal stories.
It would be an end to religious elitism and theocracy building!!! No more
evangelicals!!!
Being critical thinkers, they would learn about socio-cultural,
post-modern, post-structuralist and semiotic accounts of mind.
It would be the end of SOM!!!
Pirsig, Peirce, Lacan, Chomsky, Bhaksar, Bakhtin... all currently unknown
in the K-12 curriculum, would become prominent in classroom discourse.
This critical thinking could lead them to see the fallacy of the
"nation-state" as conflated with particular ideologies, and would be able
to critically examine particular nation-states for their actions and
structure. They would learn to understand that there is a difference
between "blind obedience to government" and "patriotism". They would begin
to think about american hegemonic policies from multiple perspectives, to
read history critically and question nationalistically or ideologically
revised "feel-good" history. They would, perhaps, begin to read
mythological accounts for their meaning and not wage war or advance
religious elitism over culturally-bound literal aspects.
One could imagine that even the untouchable doctrine of "capitalism" would
come into the critical arena (perhaps through the hegemony discussion, but
also from a Marxist perspective). Other political theories could be
legitimately discussed and compared, without falling back on the US
good/Everyone Else Bad dichotomy. Alienating labor from labor activity
could be openly discussed without McCarthy-ian fears of the evil red empire.
They would be able to critically assess the two-party system that is modern
american politics, examine the rhetoric of this dichotomy of
freedom-tyranny that is promoted as political discourse.
Perhaps these students would critically examine "gender", and be able to
discuss it's fractured manifestations as not something fear or be ashamed
of, or used to manipulate political discourse. Indeed, the use of language
itself could be critically assessed (although this relies strongly on
cross-cultural competence, as critically thinking about a language within
that language is difficult, although not impossible). Students would be
able to critically determine when evangelical groups attempt to promote
their agenda through language framing.
Ahhh... what a glorious thought!!!!
;-)
Arlo
Platt- you asked me a legitimate question (regarding the foundation for the
morality of the things I had mentioned). I will get to this, I am more in a
light-hearted mood today. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 11 2004 - 19:26:25 GMT