From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 11:25:27 GMT
Hi Arlo
Strongly agree, this is why I did intellectual
history at University, something you can't do in 3 years
but I have kept going for 20. I often feel that I
talk to other well educated people who don't even
have much of a grasp of their specialist subject because
of the lack of context.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
> Hi Rich,
>
> At 08:50 AM 11/12/2004, you wrote:
>>Hi Arlo, MSH, others,
>>
>>I can see where you are both coming from, but isn't putting subjects like
>>evolution and Intelligent Design in seperate categories (science,
>>metaphysics, religion) part and parcel of the subject/object
>>stratification that leads to psichic alienation? I see your arguments
>>making sense within a SOM framework, but shouldn't we be discussing the
>>MoQ here?
>
> I think what I had in mind was a little different, and I'm sorry I did not
> make that clear. One of the biggest problems with the current school
> curriculae is that there is no interrelativity among the courses. Each is
> seen as a discrete "block". This problem leads children to believe that
> history and biology (just to pick two we've been talking about) have
> nothing to say about each other. Untrue. And it makes for a boring, if not
> misleading, approach to learning. Many charter schools are developing and
> using an intergrated curriculum. This is something I have looooong been a
> proponent of.
>
> So, yes, in the current setting a discrete "metaphysics" course would be
> of course useless, as it would have nothing to apply to, or orient the
> students around. What I had in mind when I mentioned this course as an
> "orienting framework", is that it would most certainly inform the other
> subjects, directly and indirectly, and in some ways could serve as a
> "unifying" course as well.
>
> That is, students would learn that their metaphysical understandings
> determine their orientations to both history and biology. From here, they
> could examine how a "metaphysical shift" could indeed impact
> understanding in BOTH courses. This level of critical awareness would
> allow the students to "read" biology from a number of metaphysical
> perspectives (indeed, this is what they SHOULD be doing).
>
> My concern is that (1) placing it soley with the biology course "bounds"
> it to that one field, and reinforces the idea of learning as learning
> unrelated chunks of knowledge, and (2) there is hardly amply time or room
> in the biology curriculum to cover metaphysics seriously, and this could
> either lead to the dominance of one particular metaphysical approach, or
> the complete dilution of them all.
>
> In this, I am in full support of abolishing the boundedness of school
> subjects, but I would like it done in such a way as to not reinforce that
> boundedness, nor give moral dominance (or incomplete consideration) to any
> one metaphysical approach.
>
> Arlo
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 12:09:44 GMT