I still owe you an answer

It would seem I got so wrapped up in the analysis of the question that I never got around to giving you an answer: should I be glad about all that political bad news or not?

Truth be told, I don't know. When looked at in a short-term context, the answer is probably "no". We've had protest votes before (for example, the Ross Perots and Ralph Naders, the Pirate Party, and more, come and go) and I'm sure we'll have more in the future (assuming, of course, that nothing is really going to change, and I'm pretty sure that most people I know won't be trying to change anything). What is more, there's always some movement left and right in modern politics (but that's because we're stuck in the 18th century politically and some places are so close to the edge (and I'm thinking about my home country here) they're going to go over the edge of the abyss before they step back from it), so nothing's really all that different. Mid-term? I doubt it. I find it amazing how people who will tell you every day that time is running out (for whatever reasons) have no trouble waiting through another election cycle to see if something does change (which it doesn't, and hasn't for the last 10 cycles they've been waiting through, but you never know, do you?) And when looked at strategically; that is, in a long-term context, well, anyone with the sense God gave a dog should see that we're not only digging our own graves, we're building and finishing the coffin and headstone, and are organizing the funeral as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not Chicken Little: the sky's not falling, at least not now, but our inaction will ensure that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better. As they say, it's always darkest right before the dawn.

And I think that's my problem. For all my gun-totin', militia-leaning, gun-owning, true-'Murrican friends: don't worry about it; you'll be dead before you live your dream of whatever it is you're dreaming. For all my, you-gotta-work-within-the-system friends: don't worry about it; before the system lets you change anything and when the "system" finally goes away, you'll be lost because that's all you know. For all my there's-nothing-us-little-people-can-do-about-any-of-this friends, don't worry: you won't have any input to make in the chaos that will most likely ensue and since you've shown you've got no imagination, your silence will be welcome when people are trying to figure out how to pick up the pieces and move on. You see, most people I know either think they're tough, don't understand the situation, or don't trust themselves in the first place. And that means that when things really do get tough, the tough-thinkers will be dead and everybody else will be more or less lost. Yep, that's my problem.

Things cannot continue as they are going now. Almost everybody's dissatisfied but hardly anyone I know has the desire, the willpower, the energy or the desire to start thinking about possible solutions. Things are certainly going to get worse before they get better, but there is every indication "out there" that better is possible.

The not-so-old American saying, "You can't fix stupid" is taking on new meaning. It's accurate in and of itself, and for that very reason, all those things we think are just given -- our economic system, capitalism in its current form; our political systems; our religions; our nationalities -- are what are going to break, and everyone who is holding on to any, or all, of these, is going to get hurt, when we find out how unsustainable all of them are.

So, am I happy about all this bad news? No, for the simple reason that too many people are going to get hurt. It doesn't have to be that way, but that seems to be the way we want it. You get what you pay for, and not enough people are investing the time and energy that is necessary to avert the obvious disasters that are facing us.

More bad news ... should I be glad?

This past Sunday, community-level elections (towns/cities and counties) were held here in Hessen. The results are in and they are, in a word, disturbing, but certainly not unexpected: there was a noticeable and unsettling shift to the populist right.

(For my American friends who live over on the right as a matter of course and who only have two party-candidates to choose from, these things don't make much sense. I understand that. In Germany, the general rule is proportional representation and any party accumulated 5% or more of the vote gets seats in the representative body. More often than not, no single party achieves an absolute majority (50+%) and so whoever wants to run the show needs to form a coalition with one or more of the other groups who had seats mandated by the election. The upside is that most often, extreme positions are tempered by necessary compromise; the downside is that if the coalition partners are close enough in program and ideology, you get things shoved down your throat anyway. Let's face it: democratic approaches are all problematic, but they're more problematic the fewer choices you have.)

All the established "people's parties" (that is, those that allegedly appeal to the broadest segments of the population), the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens (G) all took noticeable hits in their votes and seats. There was, once again, a lot of protest voting going, with voters seeking alternatives to the status quo. Though the Linke (the Leftists) showed moderate increases (even if they didn't manage to get over the 5% hurdle), the majority of "protestors" jumped to the right: moderately toward the Liberal Democrats (FDP), who managed to get back into the city and county councils where they had been voted out five years ago), moderately to the Free Voter Associations (a loose association of independents), but drastically to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-populist party that comes of short of having to wear brown shirts wherever they go. It would seem, the scare tactics sown by the governmental and mainstream media (though the AfD calls the mainstream press the "liar press") have yielded fruit. In (too) many places, they garnered 10-15% of the seats.

The naivists among you will be grumbling that if that's the will of the people it needs to be respected, but as is so often the case, what the people want and what political parties want are very different things. Granted, I've not been everywhere and I've not experienced every possible democratic system going, but I've experienced three personally and I've got to hear a lot about a good number of other systems from people who are trying to come to terms with their own back home. What all of them have in common is this: the party comes first, the members come second, and everyone else doesn't matter at all; thank you for your votes, even if you were protesting, but you don't count in the end.

Politics, by its very nature, is about power, and as Lord Acton made clear: the more you have, the more you want and the worse off you are because of it. I firmly believe that we need ways to organize ourselves to ensure that our needs are met. The level of this organization has to be more than just the single individual or family. We're social creatures, so social organization is necessary. Whether we've got systems that ensure that, well, I only have to look at the latest community-level elections here or the circus they call the American primaries over there to convince me that we don't. We have systems that ensure the system-players' interests and power. That's it.

We've been repeatedly told how far we have advanced and how technologically savvy we are, how smart we are and how many options we have, but for some reason, we can't get past a political system that can't get out of the 17th century. I don't think that speaks very highly for any of us. And so we're all driven to feel -- and then believe -- that there's nothing we can do about any of it, so it would just be best if we would sit back and passively accept our fate. Unfortunately, as it appears that things are developing in America and the poke in the ribs we just got here in Hessen make me think that it's high time we put our thinking caps on. Those in power are looking to keep it; those who are tasting it for the first time are looking to keep it; those who lost a bit of theirs are looking to regain it, and the rest of us ... well, we're just going to be pushed aside unless we stand up for ourselves.

A new year, a new approach

An obnoxious purple dinosaur once remarked that sharing is caring, and despite my aversion to the character himself, I will freely admit, he does have a point. Sharing can take on any number of forms, and there is a line when crossed turns sharing into interference, so we should generally follow his advice, but not blindly. I mean, one of the reasons I blog is to share ... my questions about people and life, my thoughts about the world around me ... not because I primarily think that I have something of value to add to the already overburdened channels of communication we are subject to in our everyday lives, but because there might be someone here or there who stumbles across this or that and perhaps pauses to consider, think, question, or even seriously reflect. It doesn't matter (to me, at any rate) whether you believe in G-d or some other kind of Supreme Being or evolution and chance, the fact remains that we humans have minds and like the saying goes, minds are a terrible thing to waste. But let's face it, when we look out into the world, it's easy to get the feeling that more are being wasted than used, let alone used wisely.

One of the primary mind enhancers that we possess is the simple fact that our minds become better/stronger/more adaptable/insightful/open/critical/capable the more we use them. Please note, I'm not talking about the brain, which is a mere physical organ. No, I'm talking about whatever it is that goes on in/via/by means of that organ that we can't grasp with any of our physical senses. I'm talking about a quality of the brain -- albeit it a potential quality -- not some mere measurable quantity.

And so, instead of simply trying to explain things, or criticizing the faults in many people's thinking, or pointing out the flaws in logic that we are so often subjected to, or merely pleading that we should be less hateful and kinder to one another, I would like to invite you to participate in an often-claimed-but-rarely-exihibited, highly-praised-but-seldom-practiced, often-maligned-but-never-decimated, highly-suspect-and-highly-dangerous adventure called reflective critical thinking. As you suspect, all thinking-based activities are threateningly close to one's own thought processes and belief systems, and thus can be considered "philosophical". Philosophy, as Wikipedia or any dictionary will quickly tell us, comes from the Greek word meaning "love of wisdom". Wisdom is, sadly, in short supply these days, but you can only get it if you use your mind to explore the whys and wherefores of your world. That means, for better or for worse, that you have to take a few minutes now and then to retreat from the world of hustle-and-bustle, job-family-money, and stimuli bombardment to simply think about what you think.

Karl-Otto Apel, a German philosopher, once remarked that the practice of philosophy is in essence the scrutinizing and questioning of things that are self-evident (das Hinterfragen von Selbstverständlichkeiten); that is things we simply take for granted. Sometimes -- most times, I would maintain -- it is to our advantage to simply try and get to the roots of why some things are. It has two very huge advantages: first, it allows us to simply think a bit differently than we do every day (change can be refreshing), and second, it gives us an opportunity to take a closer look at ourselves without having to expose ourselves to others (insight can be, well, insightful).

And so, in the coming posts, should you encounter topics that are not what you normally expect or that appear to be more than obvious, I welcome you to take a closer look and give it all just a bit more thought. Nothing is as it appears, but everything is simply as we know it.

Groundhog Day

Today's a special day for the denizens, and those who hail from Western Pennsylvania. In a little town, known for nothing other than a cranky rodent, each year on this day, Phil, as he is affectionately known, comes out of his burrow after his long winter's sleep. If he sees his shadow, I suppose he's happy, because that sight sends him back underground to wait another six weeks for winter to end. And so the legend goes, year after year, time and time again (which was the inspiration for the movie of the same name).

Over the course of the movie, for all the wrong reasons, the main character, played by Bill Murray, does the right thing(s) in order to become a better person and win the heart of the leading lady, played by Andie McDowell. How touching (and humorous) it all is, but how true as well. Einstein -- no slacker in the thinking and intelligence department -- is credited with saying that doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different result is a sign of insanity. If Uncle Al is correct, then I guess we're all insane.

OK, I may not do the same thing over and over again, but it has come to my attention that I say the same things over and over again. It's not really that I expect different results, but any result would be OK with me. Still, I can't help but feel that what I do, and what Al was talking about aren't really all that different.

Today, I included a picture -- a word cloud, to be exact -- to show you what I keep talking about. The cloud is a visual rendition of the frequency of key words or labels for my blog, from the very beginning to the end of January this year. I sort of like the picture, it tells me a lot.

I wonder if it tells you anything.

#500

It's really hard to believe. After more than a quarter million words, I've come to my 500th post. If I were a champagne drinker, I supposed I'd be popping corks.

Blogs aren't all I write, but blogging does take up a good portion of my time. I've poured a lot of words into academic containers, I can assure you, for it seems that higher education is unthinkable without text. What I learned over there was that we have established a lot of fact, we have described a lot of phenomena, and we know one helluva lot these days. But what I've realized that in spite of all that, we're really not all that smarter -- as a species, that is -- and we're certainly not any wiser for it.

Writing aficionados will tell you that you need to write a million words. Well, just over five years, just over 250,000 words ... you can do the math. Who's says I'll even live long enough to know whether I found it or not. At least in the blogging world, that is. But, maybe it's not a hard-and-fast rule.

Yes, the 500th blog post. There was a time when numbers were thought to mean something. (Oh, we still think that they do in some areas: like business where as long as the last one is bigger than the previous one we think we should be happy; or if you're the millionth customer somewhere. Funny: the bigger the number the better, but it hasn't always been so. There was a time when small was beautiful: one world; a happily married couple; for Christians, the Trinity; the four corners of the earth; the seven wonders of the world ... OK, so some numbers were left out. We moderns all know that was all meaningless nonsense anyway.No, I'm not going to make a case that gematria or number mysticism is "true", but it is a way to get off dead center and maybe see things in a slightly different light.

Take the number 5, for example. Traditionally, this was the number of change. After all, it was at the midway point between 0 and 9. The mystic Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin thought it was an evil number, and I suppose it is, if change isn't one of your favorite things. And 500? Well, that's two orders of magnitude greater (5*10= 50, or one order of magnitude; 50*10=500, the second order). If one order of magnitude is a kicker (for example, four may be a foundation, but think of 40 years in the desert, or 40 days of fasting, or 40 days of rain ... those familiar Bible texts start to look a bit different, I must say), then what's two? If 10-times is a spiritualization, then 100-times starts looking cosmic. Right. And that's kind of how I feel right now?

Stated somewhat differently, it would appear that my 500th blog post should mark some kind of fundamental change. And maybe that's where I am. To be perfectly honest, in all that I have written here over the past five-plus years, I've done everything I could to be clear but civil, to be controversial but considerate. And now, perhaps, it's time for a change. Why not?

It would seem, dear Reader, that now is simply a propitious opportunity to vary the presentation, to alter the approach, to step up to the plate, to ... well, you get the point. But, perhaps it's time to simply up the intensity. Now, that's a thought ...

Why do I do this?

Recently, at a conference I was attending, someone asked me why I blogged. They didn't really see the point of it all. "Isn't this simply the satisfaction of some narcisstic need?", she asked. Well, I decided to tell you what I told her.

There are lots of reasons why people blog. They range from mere getting attention, to feeling important, to exposing injustice to ... well, the list is actually endless. There are millions of bloggers and there are millions of reasons for blogging. Mine, I like to think, are anything but grandiose. In fact, I believe they are really humble. And there are five (just a handful) of them:

1. It is my firm belief that there is not enough thinking going on the world. I'm not talking about mere mental processes, I'm talking about serious, deep engagement with things that matter, like what it means to be human, what role do we play in our own lives, why are there so many "problems" in the world, and why such a beautiful place as our Earth is being wantonly destroyed before our eyes.
2. William James once said, "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." I couldn't agree with him more, and I don't think that such "thinking" is to our collective advantage. It is used for personal advantage, to be sure, but selfishness isn't a human characteristic that need be writ large.
3. All of us are in the same boat together. It's called Reality. It's not an easy thing to deal with. We can use all the help we can get. There is only so much we can know, but there is an infinite amount of what we think we know. That's not always helpful. The more reasonably we can agree can make a huge difference in how things play out.
4. We humans have a pivotal, if not central, role in what we call Creation or Nature or The World ... it doesn't matter what we call it. None of us chose to be here, but we're here nevertheless ... all of us. We, whether we like it or not, have more to say about how things play out than any other species on the planet, and I think it's about time we start living up to our potential.
5. In the end, it is up to us -- all of us -- whether my and your children and grandchildren live in a world worth living in. This is not an exaggeration, it is a fact. We humans have been blessed (cursed?) with the notion of responsibility. It's time for us to 'fess up.

In other words, at heart, I blog because I want people to stop, reflect on what they are thinking, and if possible, rethink what needs rethinking, not just for themselves, but for all our sakes'. Yes, that's a pretty big charge, I know.

Life's not simple, and it's surely not easy, but it's not complicated either, at least if we don't make it so. It is, however, manageable, if we go about it with a clear head. We are faced with innumerable challenges and choices every day, and we can really only make headway if we acknowledge this and do something about it. But, whatever we do, we should have thought about it first.

What you think is not nearly as important as the fact that you have thought about it. Opinions, as it is said, should be the result of thinking, not a substitute for it.

The courage to be foolish

Yes, I know, I'm being foolish. Expecting folks not to be afraid is just plain silly. I know most of you are saying to yourselves, "I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not afraid of anything." You couldn't be more wrong. Take this scenario:

In just under three weeks Americans are going to go to the polls. Most of you, I'm sure have already made up your minds how you're going to vote, simply because - as I said before - you're afraid to vote differently. Seriously. I know there are a lot of you voting for Romney because you don't like or want Obama. Mitt, however, is heartless, cruel, mean, deceiving, conniving, and ruthless. He has no idea what he's talking about, I have no idea what he stands for (other than money and moneyed interests) and his running mate is every bit as bad, if not worse. I also know there are a lot of you voting for Obama, because you don't like or want Romney. Obama, however, is weak, ambivalent, misguided, deceiving, conniving and, in domestic policy, at least, ruthless. He does know what he's talking about, but I'm only sort of clear on what he stands for, and his running mate is harmless. I don't think I need to remind you all that neither of these descriptions are reasons to vote.

Granted, the Republicans are trying to make an unreasonable voting system even more unreasonable with this whole ID thing that has no basis in reality, and there are some of you who are even contemplating - perish the thought! - voting for a third party candidate, just to protest. And that, my dear friends, is about as courageous as the American voting public will become. In the secrecy of the voting booth, they'll pull the lever for someone else. But to what avail? None.

Regardless of how the election turns out, it will be the people who "wasted their votes" that will have screwed everything up, just like Nader was accused of in 2000. First, we have to realize that the very concept of "wasting a vote" only exists in America, and it is far from the concept of "democracy" as you can get. So, here's my suggestion, here's how you make your wasted vote count:

Vote for Mickey Mouse. Write him in on the ballot. It's that simple. Let's face it, he gets votes in every election anyway, but never enough to get electoral votes to really make a difference (because, remember, Americans aren't even trusted to elect their own president ... how insulting is that!). So here's your chance. Forget the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialist Workers. Rally for Mickey Mouse! Take a stand, show the system how silly it really is and for once in your life, cast a vote of which the system is worthy. Why? Because if you all did it, you'd finally get the much-needed discussion started to get things sorted reasonably. Maybe, just maybe, you could even turn your electoral system into a democratic one.

But, I know that most of you just don't have the courage, so you'll bow your head, lower your eyes, "do the right thing" (which in this case is wrong), and pull the lever for who you believe is the least of all evils. But remember, that's still choosing evil. You need courage to face up to evil ... or are you just too afraid?

Mongers

I'm sure there are some of you who are upset right now. Good. I'm sure there are some of you who don't feel you've been spoken to. Not so good. And, I'm sure there are some of you who don't know how you feel about any of this at all. Bad. Sooner or later you have to wake up and put the old brain in gear.

Don't get me wrong. I know exactly how difficult it is to be courageous when faced with the violence that civil authorities can bring to bear. And more importantly, what will the neighbors think if you get picked up somewhere for dissenting? Yes, we shouldn't forget the neighbors.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest cause of violence in the West -- especially in the US, but elsewhere, like Spain or Greece recently -- is fear. The government is afraid of the people. The people are afraid of their governments. How sad is that in 21st-century, allegedly democratic societies? The problem in America is compounded by the fact that there are almost as many weapons in private hands as there are private hands. There are a lot of guns and a lot of potential for violence, even if it may be in some way in self-defense. No, with so many guns and so many people on edge, I think everyone has every right to be just a tad uneasy. No, they have every right to be downright afraid. Fear is our biggest enemy.

I'm not the first to say this (nor will I be the last) and a friend of mine recently nailed it in his blog, too. We're being told to fear everything: authorities, others, strangers, illegal immigrants (legal immigrants will soon follow, believe me), radicals, extremists (especially religious ones), and the list goes on and on. Why? It really doesn't take all that much effort to turn just about anyone or anything we don't particularly care for into some kind of bogeyman. That's that way were raised, I suppose. Be afraid of whatever it is you don't know. We didn't do anything else our parents told us, but that ... well, we probably learned that lesson all to well. The one lesson that wasn't worth learning at all.

Most often, we're afraid of whatever we don't know ... the unknown. The easiest way to overcome that particular fear is to get to know whatever it is that is unknown to us. Instead of simply rejecting things out of hand because we're afraid of what we might find (what happens if what we envision to be so "bad" turns out not to be bad at all ... or even worse, what if we find out we like it?). The solution is easy: stop, look, listen (just like crossing the street, remember?) and when in doubt, ask. It really is time we got serious about being critical. The only thing you have to lose is your fear.

Courage? Right.

There are a few brave souls out there who will think seriously about thinking critically, but they are a dwindling majority. Most of you are thinking to yourselves, "Yes, what's wrong with those cowards who won't take a stand for tomorrow?", whereby you who are thinking this may be the most to blame. Just how critical is your own thinking? Have you ever really tested it? And if you have, have you done so publicly? I think most likely not. Don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing anyone of cowardice, but I know how most of you are feeling. Yeah, but ... and it's always the "but" that gets you and it's where you end up getting kicked as well.

Take this freak show going under the guise of a presidential campaign: How many of you have already made up your minds? Good. Now how many of you have thought about something substantial in making that decision? Right. Now, for all of you who have made substantial decisions, have you seriously investigated any of Romney's policies? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd find out he really doesn't have any. He campaigns well enough against Obama, but he is as backhanded as they come. Or, for you Obama fans: have you seriously thought about his policies or are you just against Romney? Probably not. Our proud Nobel Prize winner has as much guilt on his conscience as the war-mongers of Bush II & Co. Why is none of this an issue?

It is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person that the best you can do is put up these two guys and then expect that the world take you seriously. Is that the best you can do? Obviously, because that's who you've got. The only folks who got close to getting it were the Occupy crowd, and we all saw what happened to them. Legitimate dissent will be crushed - literally crushed - by the powers-that-be. Police departments ... yes, police departments ... are buying mid-sized armor and drones, for crying out loud. The police, mind you. Bloomberg even brags about having one of the world's largest armies, and he's talking about NYPD. Tell me that's not downright bizarre.

And every single one of you who found a rationalization for this, everyone who thinks that you have do something before things get out of hand ... well, you guys are not thinking critically. In fact, you're not thinking at all. All that America seems to know anymore, all that America is being seen for anymore, is the amount and intensity of violence they are willing to perpetrate on themselves. We already know they are not overly sensitive to inflicting it also on others.

Might does not make right. Never has, never will. What is right can only be determined by thinking people debating serious ideas, and you can't get to serious ideas without questioning what is. I hear a lot of saying, but as good as no questioning at all.

The courage to educate

Picking up on the theme from the time-before-last, let me just say that school choice is a red herring. All that I can advise any of you is to follow the money. I mean, if you want you children to be a certain way and you find a school that will make them that way, well, then I suppose you are perfectly free to put them there. But it's really just a form of child abuse. Harsh words? Not really. Think about it.

Let's say you're one of those parents who believes the Creationists. It's your right as an adult, but at some point, whether you like it or not, your child has to go out into the world and live on its own, makes his or her own living. You can hide the child away until well into their 20s, maybe even 30s, but then? OK, you're safe if you stay in America where such nonsense is not only tolerated, but promoted, and then? Whether we like it or not, we live in an increasingly globalized world and sooner or later your child is going to have to face the world. What have you done to prepare them for that? Nothing. In fact, you may have lessened the child's real-world survival skills, and why should you get tax dollars for that?

Or, what about you supposedly upward-mobile types. You're betting the bankers and rich folk are going to get away with it in the future like they have in the past. I have the feeling that this isn't where the smart money is. No, those with the money are doing everything they can to ensure that you folks are firmly entrenched between them and the unwashed masses. When it gets down to it, they'll be in the Caymans, you'll be here and your kids ... well, they won't know how to think for themselves or do much of anything for themselves because you've just brainwashed them a different way.

Personally, I think we should give kids a chance, the chance to be themselves, to become what they might be able to be, not what we want. The leading cause of screwed up kids is screwed up parents. Period. But it takes courage to be a real parent, just like it takes courage to be a real teacher, but we're doing everything in our power to ride those types out of town on a rail. If we want to have a chance in the future, and if we want our children to have a chance at all, then we have to have the courage to raise them to be able to survive on their own ... not just physically, not just socially, but mentally as well.

We need to be teaching our children to think, and the most effective way to do that, IMNSHO, is to teach them to question. They need to be able to ask the tough questions that need to be answered if we're going to get anywhere any time soon. But, as the story of Socrates shows us all too well, those who question will question authority, and authority, by and large doesn't like being questioned. This is so because at bottom it knows that it is in place not because it deserves to be but because it exerts enough force to be there. Questioning people tend to unmask force's inadequacies, and we can't be having that, can we?

True parents, true teachers allow their authority to be questioned because they know that the only true authority is that which can withstand the scrutiny of the most penetrating questions. They are not afraid of what might be found. They have the courage to educate.

Better schools?

The question that immediately springs to mind in response to the critical-thinking dilemma is whether schools are the answer ... or at least the start toward a solution?

The short answer is "no". The somewhat extended answer is "no, not in their present form". Well, the answer then must be simply more choice in selecting schools, right? No, wrong again.

Though some of even labeled this the "paradigm shift in education", it's nothing of the sort, because this pseudo-answer is that other schools are by nature good. They aren't. Charter schools, elite schools, prep schools, expensive schools ... it doesn't matter what you call them, in the end, they are just schools and the quality of a school is not to be found in it's tuition price tag, nor even in its reputation.

As long ago as 1906, William Graham Sumner, in his seminal work, Folkways clearly showed that schools tend to serve the rather uncritical function of social indoctrination. He wrote:

Schools make persons all on one pattern, orthodoxy. School education, unless it is regulated by the best knowledge and good sense, will produce men and women who are all of one pattern, as if turned in a lathe. An orthodoxy is produced in regard to all the great doctrines of life. It consists of the most worn and commonplace opinions which are common in the masses. The popular opinions always contain broad fallacies, half-truths, and glib generalizations (p. 630).

The only difference school choice may make at all is regarding which particular flavor of social indoctrination you prefer. But, then, we are simply back to the "yes" answer to question 3 of yesterday's quiz.

No, we do need a paradigm shift (if not more) in education, but I'm not sure we're ready for it. And one thing is particularly clear: those who think the revolution is in the choice, really don't want a shift at all.

A little quiz

Time for a little quiz, if you're game. It's simple, just answer the following five questions with either "yes" or "no":

Do you ...

1. consider yourself reasonably well informed?
2. get most of your news from trusted sources?
3. prefer talking with people who think like you?
4. believe a good many of our problems can be solved?
5. feel fairly sure about what our problems are?

There, that didn't hurt did it? So what's the catch? Oh, yes. Well, if you answered either question 1 with "no" or any of the remainder of the questions with "yes". You're part of the problem. You exhibit sheep-like tendencies, or, if that's too harsh a judgment, you have underdeveloped critical-thinking skills. (Better?)

One of the reasons why things these days see one-sided or simply out of balance is because that's exactly what they are: one-sided and out of balance. It never ceases to amaze me how, say, prior to an election, and even prior to the actual candidates having been selected, for example, people know how they are going to vote. How does that work? If things are that predictable, hasn't it crossed your mind that perhaps the whole voting exercise is not all it's cracked up to be?

This isn't a purely American phenomenon, don't get me wrong. Oh sure, as in so many cases, the Americans like to be #1, and they're probably doing it best at the moment, but there are just too many people who aren't doing their share of thinking. There's too much acceptance, not enough questioning.

Ah, yes, questioning. We certainly don't do a lot of that anymore, and from what I can tell, it's not being taught in a lot of schools either. Information is king these days, not asking whether the information being funneled into our heads or the heads of our children is worth anything.

It's going to come back to haunt us, I can tell you, and I'd be willing to bet sooner, rather than later, and we're not going to like it when it happens.

Thought experiment debrief

Some of you caught yourselves thinking things you didn't think you did, I'm sure. It happens to all of us at one or another. We have lots of little "built-in" assumptions, prejudices and other hinderances to completely objecting thinking. There's nothing wrong with you – in the sense of "out-of-the-ordinary" – for this is perfectly natural behavior. What's important that we are aware that such things can, occasionally, cloud our judgment. The more aware we are that such is happening is, the better chance we stand of being able to work against it.

It is simply not enough to have high ideals in regard to key notions such as equality or freedom. We also need to have a willingness to question our own beliefs, to put ourselves in someone else's shoes to see what kinds of effects our own statements and beliefs may have on others. Yes, it's a lot of work. Yes, it doesn't always work. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk involved. But, the risk is manageable.

One of the things about living in the modern world is its dynamism and unpredictability. We can suddenly find ourselves in situations that quickly turn out to be precisely 180 degrees around from what we think we they are. It is not enough to simply have a position or an opinion about something, rather, it is important that we consider in which situations that point-of-view is appropriate, or which particular aspects of a situation are driving us to think in a particular way.

In other words, we need to be more involved in our own thinking. We need to be more aware: not just aware of whom we are dealing with, what we think, but also which impacts our way of thinking can – and do – have on others. We need to think about why we believe what we believe and what reasons we have for thinking that way. As our little thought experiment showed: what seems reasonable in one situation is suddenly not so reasonable in another.

I'm not telling you to beware, rather to be aware … aware of your surroundings, aware of others, and, of course, aware of yourself.

A thought experiment

What's that, you may be asking. Is this an experiment to see if thinking is going on? Well, not completely, but sort of. No, a thought experiment is when you try to think about a proposed situation (that is, a particular configuration of events or circumstances) to determine what are the consequences or the results that come of it. A thought experiment is a chance to not only think about something in a particular way, but it is also an opportunity to reflect on how our own minds work. OK? Everything clear? All right, let's give it a go. Imagine you overhear someone near you make the following statement:

"These illegal immigrants are getting out of hand ... coming in here like that ... no one asked them to come, that's for sure. And now they're acting like they own the place, running around with their weird customs and speaking that foreign language nobody can understand. They're just spreading out and taking over everything. Using up all of our stuff. Why doesn't somebody do something about it? Why don't they just round them all up and send them back where they came from. This is our country, not theirs."

Now, take a moment and reflect on your reaction: did you agree (whereby agreeing is relative; it's a sliding scale from "not at all" to "absolutely!")? Did you think the speaker was maybe overgeneralizing? Did you think perhaps that the speaker was being too emotional? Did you think that perhaps s/he had a point and there was food for thought there? That's what I'm talking about. Go ahead, take a few minutes to reflect. I'll just wait here till you're done ...

So, how did it turn out? What does that tell you about how you view a topic such as illegal immigration? Did you think about why you might feel the way you do about certain aspects of the statement? I think you will agree, though, that thought experiments can be interesting, maybe even fun (within limits, of course), even though some of you are patting yourselves on the back for how tolerant you are and others are praising themselves for their principled position.

OK, great, now let me add just one little tidbit of information that I left out when presenting the statement: it was made by a Mexican in what we now call Texas in the year 1834.

What are you thinking now? The same? Something else? Did you feel that little twinge of hey-wait-a-minute? The only one who needs to know the reaction is you, of course, but the additional bit of information – the context – I think you will agree, plays an important role in what we think and why.

Can you get there from here?

I've been told that up in Maine, if you ask for directions, the most likely response you'll get is "you can't get there from here" (and then they go on to explain how you do). That's got to be what a lot of you are thinking right now, and I certainly don't blame you. The demands are high, but so are the stakes. It won't be easy, but it's possible.

One of the most fortunate twists of fate I've had in my life was the opportunity to study at the University of Giessen (Germany) in the late 70s/early 80s. Most of all, I had the privilege of having a couple of the most insightful and profound thinkers of the time as my teachers and mentors (Hans-Eberhard Piepho & Lothar Bredella), neither of whom any of you have ever heard of, but that doesn't diminish the power of their thinking one iota. Piepho was pragmatic and probably the best foreign-language teacher I'd ever experienced, but his whole focus was on communicative competence. Bredella was the philosopher who had studied with Hans-Georg Gadamer and who introduced me intensely to the thinking of the contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, undoubtedly one of the profoundest thinkers of the 20th century. What all of these guys had in common, however, was an unshakeable faith in the human capability to communicate reasonably, to discourse rationally, and as a result, come to understandings that were grounded enough to actually make the world a better place. We could use more of them these days.

Although idealists in the philosophical sense of the world, they could envision what is possible. Through their practice they instilled that vision into their students. As bright, and capable, and deep as they might have been, they engaged their students as partners – equal partners – in the search for knowledge and truth. They ... I know it is hard to believe ... practiced what they preached.

We need to talk, discourse, discuss, and debate, but not to see who in the end is right and who is wrong, not to win or score points or obtain bragging rights. No, we need to communicate. We need to acknowledge our discussion partners not as adversaries to be defeated, but rather as agents of agreed-on change. We must accept the "other" as an free and equal participant in the discussion that brings benefit to all. And that's the challenge that many will have difficulty overcoming.

What do we really want, take 2

Unlike a cat chasing its tail, sometimes it's simply good to get back to where you started. We need to talk, find consensus, listen, discuss, debate. It should be clear that the reciprocity of which I spoke a couple of posts ago when discussing the establishment of moral standards is actually applicable in more realms than just the moral. Personally, I think all decisions are moral decisions, but I understand that some others might want to take a more restricted view. Nevertheless, we can't make any headway at all if we don't recognize certain truths as being self-evident. And, regardless of how self-evident they may be, we should still be clear on what they mean.

To reduce it to simplest terms, as I see it, two conditions must be met in order for a true discussion, for true discourse to take place: the participants must be free, that is, free to express their views, free to think differently, free to think outside or inside the box, free to think in directions that you may have never thought of; and, the participants must be equal, that is, when it comes to discourse, serious discourse, there can be no hierarchy, no better-than, no smarter-than, no tougher-than.

I know, I know ... I can hear some of you squealing already, but sorry, we need to have a common understanding of what the terms "freedom" and "equality" mean, and beyond that, we need to understand what it means to live by those understandings and not just play lip-service to them. For the most part, most of us have given up our equality to the experts (cf. "Roszak and Eliot", "Expert terror"), and most of us have given up our freedom, most often for security (cf. "Fear of freedom", "Free – really?") . But I'm here to tell you: we don't live in a safe world. We never did, and, chances are very good, if we ever do, it will be a long time coming. And moreover, a whole lot of the mess we're in these days is simply because we let the so-called experts have their way.

At the end of the day, then, don't you think it might be about time to finally realize that if we're going to be affected about whatever is decided, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a bad idea if we were part of the decision-making process? I do.

Thinking outside the box

Terry Pratchett once wrote, "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it." Encouraged by what I wrote about last, I'm making a ruling that there is some going on in there, so there's nothing stopping us from getting out of it and thinking further.

You see, the reason I figured the guy I wrote about last time missed the point is because he wants to apply a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The things that affect you the most are the things that need to be addressed most expediently. Yes, you have to get everyone involved as much as possible. You win "converts" by demonstrating that it is worth the time and effort to self-direct as much as possible of one's own fate.

There will come a time when you have to go beyond the community; but, when a wider range of communities find agreed to solutions, then the next level of the hierarchy, so to speak, can be addressed (or eliminated, as the case may be ... we may not need as many layers of anything as we currently have). After all, we need roads and water supplies and sewage treatment and garbage collection and energy and telecommunications, and these simply need to be addressed on a larger scale, but we haven't taken the time to figure out what that scale might be.

We'll never figure it out, though, if we keep insisting in thinking the same old way we always have. That's where we are right now, carping at each other with such useless verbiage that nothing at all can get done and the divide-and-conquer types have free reign in, well, dividing and conquering. We're not doing ourselves a favor by not talking. It hasn't got us anywhere and insisting on perpetuating what isn't working is simply not very bright as I see it.

I can't say it enough: we need to start thinking seriously about what is really important to us. We need to start talking seriously about the things we take seriously. And, we have to be open enough to the "other" to recognize that s/he just might have something to say, as an individual, that is worth listening to.

Thinking inside the box

Things aren't like a lot of us would like them to be, and what is surprising is that every now and again, we find ourselves agreeing with people whom we probably wouldn't even normally talk to. Don't you just hate it when that happens? You always hope nobody you know is around to see it.

Not too long ago, a friend suggested I read something in the American Conservative, a publication, I'll admit, I don't have RSS feeding me, but in keeping with my policy of if-you-really-want-me-to-I'll-read-it, well, I read it. It was a coherent, fairly well argued piece about fixing Congress. It should be clear by now that I'm not all that convinced there's anything left to fix, but in principle, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he had to say: his point that it is really about governance is, to my mind, spot on, and we would agree that the left-right debate is a red herring; we agree, as well, that in essence money and power are at the heart of the issue, and in this regard, we also agree that whatever solutions may be found can and must cut widely across currently accepted ideological lines; we agree that the people most affected should be part of deciding on the solution, and that's what we have lost most touch with. In other words, it has everything to do with being serious about things that matter to you. And the place you have to start is by talking to people, and very often people you wouldn't normally be talking to.

His approach, of course, was one inside the box. And I suppose if you're in a box, or think you are, that's the best place to start. What encouraged me was not that we disagreed on points but that we agreed that if we didn't start talking to one another, openly and seriously, we were in for more trouble than we really all are bargaining for. As I've been advocating for some time now: we need to start figuring out what matters to us as why, and then we need to figure out ways to get things to be the way we want them to be.

And there you have it: it's more about we than me. That's why too many people are probably not going to get it.

Outta

This last trip "home" was very short: a mere sixteen days, but time enough for at least one impression every 24 hours:

Out of sight, out of mind.
Out of place, out of time.
Out of rhythm, out of tune.
Out of bounds and not too soon.
Out of power, out of gas.
Out of hope that couldn't last.
Out of money, out of funds.
Out of luck that never comes.
Out of give, out of take.
Out of sleep but not awake.
Out of up, out of down.
Out of square, out of round.
Out of happy, out of sad.
Out of angry, not out of mad.
Out of thinking, out of thoughts.
But with ideals that can't be bought.

OK, it's not a travelogue, but it's not supposed to be.

Thinking even more about learning

If we accept that Carr may be onto something, then we must ask ourselves what behaviors, what learning the Net supports. It would appear that it is largely behavioral: the successful following of a link, the Facebook 'thumbs-up', the signal tone indicating an incoming SMS … all of these are positive reinforcements that Pavlov and, in particular, Skinner could be proud of. This point needs to be explored in more depth, but we would be remiss to dismiss this all as the jaundiced view of a luddite. Carr's point is that we are, in fact, rewiring our brains, and that this rewiring favours certain mental functions and capacities. If he is right, our understanding of education may be in need of revising … or saving, depending on how one looks at it.

Roszak, as we saw, made the case that it was our revised notion of "information" that makes the Net possible, and it is this notion that is undermining the institution of education itself. Carr is indicating that there is a body of sound, scientific, neurophysiological evidence to support Roszak's contention. It would seem worthwhile, then, to at least devote part of the time searching the literature to establish a foundation upon which a position can be taken, for if Roszak and Carr are correct, we may be in the process of undoing our understanding of the notion of education without even realizing it. We need to make a distinction, of course, between what the Net does best and what the Net can be used for. A shoe is not a hammer, but in a pinch it can be used to pound in a nail. A hammer may be better for pounding in nails, but if the window is open and it is breezy outside, it functions very well as a paperweight. In other words, it is not the tool in and of itself that determines its "best" use, rather it is the situation, the context, and the intent that best determines what is best. I believe we need to take a similar approach to the Net and technology-enhanced learning.

In terms of design, what works may be a reasonable enough approach. What is optimal may not be a matter of absolutivity but of relativity. In design, awareness of consequences and side-effects may be as important as knowledge about design itself or about the technology platform on which the learning is supposed to take place.

References
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains, New York & London, W.W. Norton and Company.

Roszak, T. (1986) The Cult of Information: The Folklore of Computers and the True Art of Thinking, London, Paladin Graftin Books.