The above 2 words are losing their value . Being treated as sacred isn't helping revive interest in the best way to keep their original meanings alive in our culture and keeping sense of their importance as ideals .
The hypocrisy of not allowing a discussion is more obvious, it seems to me , if we observe the phenomenon in another culture.
Why for example are PapuaNG ( esp this week )leaders both keen to look like they are running a democracy, when one or many parties don't respect the spirit of it . ( NEWS ALSO /Syria/ Iraq/ Thailand) Truthfulness about " a no talk situation "would help us see the truth and how to keep the spirit alive . No talk prevents discussion and allows abuse by religious isolation and veneration.
Is the hypocrisy evident in current PNG politics ( 2 leaders claiming to represent the people ) something we TOO could be excused of .
Marriage is observed (Both leaders claim parliamentary support ) but family breakdown is obvious. These dumb observances, mere description and talk of mere numbers fail to deal with the hypocrisy and key disease of "allowing everybody to do your own thing as morally right" .Good governance becomes by default bad governanace if you don't define governance better that the rule of the majority ( The Greeks knew this, why don't we?The Greeks knew that information is power (Aristocracy) why don't we? The real status of any marriage amongst political leaders is obviuos -often only just a piece of paper .Worse, it can be plain hypocrisy on the part of parties; less than worthless, plain distracting .
Marriage and democracy isn't a problem to those who know what it really means . Refusing to discuss what it means can mean that a new generation won't know what it really means !
In our own culture, Marriage equality is made out to be a big ambition that we must and haven't achieved to date. Surely such an ambition, if achieved ,will be a hollow one because redefinition will kill the spirit of the word just as technofix over it now ,when marraige no longer works for most people, has killed the interest . My point is , the spirit is more easily lost by seeking to shore up some silly sacred view of it .
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Finding Happiness
If we knew , we could be millionaires; so why aren't I ? I won't go there just yet but , in truth I have "moved on" far enough to know its not about money .
So there goes the value of a democratic survey - most people are not "there yet" so you can't trust them to know about being millionaires .The majority may also still believing the TV or the group , the talk or whatever ; unlikely to say No to status they haven't yet got ; an exoperinece they haven't had .
BUT It must be something else . You only have to ask for money from the rich to know that the mathematics of happiness does not include the joy of giving for most of them (statistically poor people do enjoy giving more (so put that in your excel chart and smoke it )
The Australia Institute are on a search for happiness sources ( Well being survey ). If its as fruitful as the search for comedy at the moment,, they might have to think a bit more laterally to actually ask for the right descriptors " .
me thinks AI's ambition is infact a sign of the disease in our society - most people aren't prepared to look widely enough to answer this question .
The answer is clearly that it's a bit spiritual- and spiritual doesn't sit well with many .The herd is not a good modelling agent AI
Jesus is quoted as saying Happiness is actually to do with NOT having things .( Matthew 5:3) He's a bit weird; right out there even.
But is He right? He claims to be God and if he's right this might be the big picture universe picture.
So there goes the value of a democratic survey - most people are not "there yet" so you can't trust them to know about being millionaires .The majority may also still believing the TV or the group , the talk or whatever ; unlikely to say No to status they haven't yet got ; an exoperinece they haven't had .
BUT It must be something else . You only have to ask for money from the rich to know that the mathematics of happiness does not include the joy of giving for most of them (statistically poor people do enjoy giving more (so put that in your excel chart and smoke it )
The Australia Institute are on a search for happiness sources ( Well being survey ). If its as fruitful as the search for comedy at the moment,, they might have to think a bit more laterally to actually ask for the right descriptors " .
me thinks AI's ambition is infact a sign of the disease in our society - most people aren't prepared to look widely enough to answer this question .
The answer is clearly that it's a bit spiritual- and spiritual doesn't sit well with many .The herd is not a good modelling agent AI
Jesus is quoted as saying Happiness is actually to do with NOT having things .( Matthew 5:3) He's a bit weird; right out there even.
But is He right? He claims to be God and if he's right this might be the big picture universe picture.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The poor PLANS , PEOPLE and PAPER balance
Nobody who works in public life is against Plans, but power desperate Polys (and those who follow their lead ) produce far too many of them . Presumably its often a sense of powerlessness and remoteness (CEO's now often do not KNOW the organisations they run ) that drives this new wave of snowing .
How does Green labor come to think that Canberra can coordinate the States action in the Murray Darling Plan. The Carbon tax too, is ambitious beyond its means. How long will Labor's new love affair with the market last ? Not long , because its a pretence - a pretence that says price will avoid paper . The politics of paper and plans seems to move in extremes . Too often people who act professionally but are treated poorly by the powerful are casualities
How does Green labor come to think that Canberra can coordinate the States action in the Murray Darling Plan. The Carbon tax too, is ambitious beyond its means. How long will Labor's new love affair with the market last ? Not long , because its a pretence - a pretence that says price will avoid paper . The politics of paper and plans seems to move in extremes . Too often people who act professionally but are treated poorly by the powerful are casualities
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Bland Curriculum constrictions
James Paterson (IPA) in The Australian ( nov 11) and in Quadrant makes a strong point about the reasons why Australians are now faced with more pedantic and overly bureaucratic education review . In presuming to tell teachers how to teach, and what they are doing wrong ( perhaps rather than tell the parents ) our political parties are doing our best teachers and our educations system great wrong . If only pollies wouldn't meddle or think they know things in other people's area of expertise.I must stop dreaming
....And get back to a memorable lesson and how it happened . A good teacher has a rather special way of approaching any subject , and its not helped by trying to define "The lesson" too closely in phrases and words that everyone ( esp a non teacher ) understands. That is to bring boring forward and leave basic excitement outside the room . That is to make the teacher the educator of the bureau and as everyone knows on that subject -most of our best teachers don't want to go back to kindergarten .
The lesson is a whole and , like a good meal , is best enjoyed and approved as a complete thing .
I would argue the case that it's "the extras"and the links to them ( the "externalities" in ecosystem or economics, if you like ) that often make a subject interesting eg a powerful discussion on renewable energy links maths, physics and plant biochemistry or fun food learning needs a bit of secondary level chemistry to make fun with food technology more than a mere list of checkboxes .Kids learn, and learn how to learn by glimpsing process in nature , not nature in isolation - in categories . You will reduce boring if you have the right links. Kids, like us, learn more by linking subjects than we do by studying them in isolation. Its part of what we say when we say "learning best by doing" too.
Just listing the components is just making a very, very long list, which no teacher has time to check list ( even though bureau persons in Canberra and Spring street might )
There is a lot to be said for the old system in Victoria where non core subject matter is categorized generally so that only the final product is approved ( rather than try and talk to the parts as they do in curriculum review)
For example learning about responsible use of alcohol is not a matter of telling kids how many stubbies is good for your health . Good education is a matter of TRUST which means the pollies are probably undermining it by trying to take full control of it.
With alcohol and good health lessons you either
-leave it to their parents,
-have a clear approved lesson of what is to be taught in a form parents can clearly understand ,( Vic system)
--or use only people the parents trust to teach the sensitive non core subjects ( has to be clear that they do ) .
Politicians meddling in the categories and undermining the trust and technical soveriegnty of a "good lesson " undermines, like a good meal, the right combination of ingredients that make them both interesting , tasty and memorable .Education should be edgy and the curriculum approach is anything but edgy.
Any more ideas on how we can avoid the ongoing dumbing down of education in Australia?
The stream of parents choosing private schools says something about more interesting combinations of subjects and values than the plain flour meals offered as gospel in too many public schools
....And get back to a memorable lesson and how it happened . A good teacher has a rather special way of approaching any subject , and its not helped by trying to define "The lesson" too closely in phrases and words that everyone ( esp a non teacher ) understands. That is to bring boring forward and leave basic excitement outside the room . That is to make the teacher the educator of the bureau and as everyone knows on that subject -most of our best teachers don't want to go back to kindergarten .
The lesson is a whole and , like a good meal , is best enjoyed and approved as a complete thing .
I would argue the case that it's "the extras"and the links to them ( the "externalities" in ecosystem or economics, if you like ) that often make a subject interesting eg a powerful discussion on renewable energy links maths, physics and plant biochemistry or fun food learning needs a bit of secondary level chemistry to make fun with food technology more than a mere list of checkboxes .Kids learn, and learn how to learn by glimpsing process in nature , not nature in isolation - in categories . You will reduce boring if you have the right links. Kids, like us, learn more by linking subjects than we do by studying them in isolation. Its part of what we say when we say "learning best by doing" too.
Just listing the components is just making a very, very long list, which no teacher has time to check list ( even though bureau persons in Canberra and Spring street might )
There is a lot to be said for the old system in Victoria where non core subject matter is categorized generally so that only the final product is approved ( rather than try and talk to the parts as they do in curriculum review)
For example learning about responsible use of alcohol is not a matter of telling kids how many stubbies is good for your health . Good education is a matter of TRUST which means the pollies are probably undermining it by trying to take full control of it.
With alcohol and good health lessons you either
-leave it to their parents,
-have a clear approved lesson of what is to be taught in a form parents can clearly understand ,( Vic system)
--or use only people the parents trust to teach the sensitive non core subjects ( has to be clear that they do ) .
Politicians meddling in the categories and undermining the trust and technical soveriegnty of a "good lesson " undermines, like a good meal, the right combination of ingredients that make them both interesting , tasty and memorable .Education should be edgy and the curriculum approach is anything but edgy.
Any more ideas on how we can avoid the ongoing dumbing down of education in Australia?
The stream of parents choosing private schools says something about more interesting combinations of subjects and values than the plain flour meals offered as gospel in too many public schools
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Original ideas - rarer than we all think
While Australia's media elite fail to recognize their old childish chorus of delight in all things reactionary (wars on everything old explains their venerability to new things technical ) they will continue to drag their audiences into the predictable reactionary dullness that has dogged the ABC for the last 30years .Greers constant reappearance on the ABCTV clearly illustrates that the ABC is stuck in the past.
As the eternal appeal of Shakespeare, and Williamson show ,some recipes don't need to change,but can benefit from the new medium .
Clearly ncp (Trioli 's forum tonight) are confused enough to not recognize that more technology won't help when more honest talk may.
ABC success is dependant on allowing objective outsiders scripts to air ( the slap ,no1 detective ) NOT the tribe of commentators waiting in the wings for another contract.
As the eternal appeal of Shakespeare, and Williamson show ,some recipes don't need to change,but can benefit from the new medium .
Clearly ncp (Trioli 's forum tonight) are confused enough to not recognize that more technology won't help when more honest talk may.
ABC success is dependant on allowing objective outsiders scripts to air ( the slap ,no1 detective ) NOT the tribe of commentators waiting in the wings for another contract.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The perfect subject for a discussion --Hot Air
Our PM and her mates somehow developed the view that hot air concerns were something simple that she could discuss with the public- how could she get it so wrong ? It seemed to them last week that it was pretty simple ---so that maybe is where the problem still lies.
To have a good discussion you have to limit the points to something that's simple. Something that has clear boundaries and is easy to visualize.
POLITICS
"Air is really pretty simple" ( only largely N,C O H Ar ) Tick that
" Warming is pretty simple " ( we all experience that every day ) Tick that
"Global warming is pretty simple" tick that "Fossil fuels heat up our our homes and engines so why not our atmosphere" It all makes sense , simple sense to most people. Tick
Check. Best of all there will be no unexpected arguments against what we say because you can't see any of the things we are talking about . Perfect
"Not only is radiation invisible its divisible and so is air . Even if we are wrong ,its going to be very hard to prove us wrong . Our bloke knows more air than their bloke and no one in the media wants a long debate nbout things they can't see . It''ll be fun and , no way we can lose - we have picked something too deep for us and too deep for them ---- to top it off " it looks simple "---- if you want to see it that way " Big tick
REALITY
Real Science stuff on the atmosphere is awe fully boring because anything to do with organic chemistry , fluid dynamics and radiation is really complex let alone together .
Lucky for polys the key elements are invisible and highly divisible
---AIR Look at the forces acting on it ; downward there is weight , and horizontally drag at the lower boundary and inertia right through to the top ; Turbulence throughout creating layers and eddies. Mountains push it up and carry water with it in all sorts of forms that drastically change the radiation and reflection patterns over every square inch of earth.
HEAT energy from the sun manages to heat up one edge of this turbulent flow in a way which is greatly influenced by the amount and height of water in the atmosphere directly above it .Meanwhile, the wind blows and carries the complexity all ways
ALL TOGETHER -lots and lots of different types of radiation running largely through the air and in changing ways each day and season .
- and every day and in every place the effect of water from the surface has an impact on whose talking to who
- on one boundary users of NCOHAr are acting against the laws of physics by using up some of the air contents in a way that is mind bogglingly complex.
I am not confused or committed to reducing Co2 . The greenhouse effect has never been properly demonstrated and most long wave radiation we produce is most likely being lost to space. Doesn't stop people thinking otherwise.
Not easy to see whose bumping into whom and what they are saying when they do . More here Copyright riskwithin reason@gmail.com
To have a good discussion you have to limit the points to something that's simple. Something that has clear boundaries and is easy to visualize.
POLITICS
"Air is really pretty simple" ( only largely N,C O H Ar ) Tick that
" Warming is pretty simple " ( we all experience that every day ) Tick that
"Global warming is pretty simple" tick that "Fossil fuels heat up our our homes and engines so why not our atmosphere" It all makes sense , simple sense to most people. Tick
Check. Best of all there will be no unexpected arguments against what we say because you can't see any of the things we are talking about . Perfect
"Not only is radiation invisible its divisible and so is air . Even if we are wrong ,its going to be very hard to prove us wrong . Our bloke knows more air than their bloke and no one in the media wants a long debate nbout things they can't see . It''ll be fun and , no way we can lose - we have picked something too deep for us and too deep for them ---- to top it off " it looks simple "---- if you want to see it that way " Big tick
REALITY
Real Science stuff on the atmosphere is awe fully boring because anything to do with organic chemistry , fluid dynamics and radiation is really complex let alone together .
Lucky for polys the key elements are invisible and highly divisible
---AIR Look at the forces acting on it ; downward there is weight , and horizontally drag at the lower boundary and inertia right through to the top ; Turbulence throughout creating layers and eddies. Mountains push it up and carry water with it in all sorts of forms that drastically change the radiation and reflection patterns over every square inch of earth.
HEAT energy from the sun manages to heat up one edge of this turbulent flow in a way which is greatly influenced by the amount and height of water in the atmosphere directly above it .Meanwhile, the wind blows and carries the complexity all ways
ALL TOGETHER -lots and lots of different types of radiation running largely through the air and in changing ways each day and season .
- and every day and in every place the effect of water from the surface has an impact on whose talking to who
- on one boundary users of NCOHAr are acting against the laws of physics by using up some of the air contents in a way that is mind bogglingly complex.
I am not confused or committed to reducing Co2 . The greenhouse effect has never been properly demonstrated and most long wave radiation we produce is most likely being lost to space. Doesn't stop people thinking otherwise.
Not easy to see whose bumping into whom and what they are saying when they do . More here Copyright riskwithin reason@gmail.com
Friday, July 1, 2011
Changing the categories
Being completely rational has its down side - Too much information and too many categories AND too many categories that keep changing .The Greeks knew that , but somehow thousands of years later we are more than happy to wander around in a fog of changing word meanings -, unable at many levels to go back and find out ---what went wrong ? This confusion at coping level can't last and threatens our civilness via our ability to agree on consensus and settled logic stuff.
A rock was once a rock - now its a bit of silica and a lot of oxygen but if it were just those 2 , we still wouldn't know what it was . How it came about is critical to whatever it is - the story is important and critical .Something similiar seems to be helpful for corroborating categories
The problem of changing names for things is not such a big issue for settled science which is very helpful because we can get on with our jobs eg . We know an neutron is not a neutron but who cares - "we know where it is and where it fits"
BUT its a big problem with big picture stuff - values and the value we put into words ( or take away from them eg changing meaning of "wicked") . Good intentions abound , but any thinking person knows that "good intentions" create the greatest evil when the application does not cut it where it counts on the ground , when we don't look at the truth because we don't like it ( in ourselves for example) or when we deny things ( like evil when we in the West dispose of the word " wicked:")
We don't need rulings ( the law ) as much as we need something to measure things with - that's good science and good faith and good relations (way back to some consensus about what to call things of importance). Otherwise the law and mere words may just be a very course imposition by those with the power or the loudest voices .
A rock was once a rock - now its a bit of silica and a lot of oxygen but if it were just those 2 , we still wouldn't know what it was . How it came about is critical to whatever it is - the story is important and critical .Something similiar seems to be helpful for corroborating categories
The problem of changing names for things is not such a big issue for settled science which is very helpful because we can get on with our jobs eg . We know an neutron is not a neutron but who cares - "we know where it is and where it fits"
BUT its a big problem with big picture stuff - values and the value we put into words ( or take away from them eg changing meaning of "wicked") . Good intentions abound , but any thinking person knows that "good intentions" create the greatest evil when the application does not cut it where it counts on the ground , when we don't look at the truth because we don't like it ( in ourselves for example) or when we deny things ( like evil when we in the West dispose of the word " wicked:")
We don't need rulings ( the law ) as much as we need something to measure things with - that's good science and good faith and good relations (way back to some consensus about what to call things of importance). Otherwise the law and mere words may just be a very course imposition by those with the power or the loudest voices .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)