I am stressing “know”, here, as in the working knowledge that gets us what
we need and want throughout our lives.
On a more physical level what we ‘need’ is sufficient food, shelter and
exercise to allow us to sustain our bodily functions over a reasonable
lifetime. It’s not unreasonable to hope for reasonable health, unstunted
growth and mental development over a period of say 30 years. It sounds
short, but it’s a minimum. Any more of that sort of life is quite a
blessing, any less verges on misfortune or even tragedy.
These physical needs are pretty much the bottom rung of Maslow’s famous
(and fairly obvious) hierarchy. And it does depend somewhat on where you
are, of course. If you are sitting under a burning sun in a sandy desert
then water would figure more highly, as would shade, food and some basic
survival information. Alone on the high seas and you’d want all of the
basics, plus a map would be handy.
But survival is more than just the basics. You can get by, or you can make
more of it and leverage your assets. To do this involves some core
knowledge. Whether you get it from me, from your parents, friends or
siblings; or if you just figure it out yourself, no matter: it will make
our lives somewhat brighter.
Firstly, we all die. Corollary, we get one shot at this. You may say,
‘Well, derr! As if I didn’t know that.” Sure, we all know it, but do you
live by it?
You may also believe in reincarnation, or an afterlife. Well and good, but
if you are wrong…let’s assume what we see is what we get, and accept for
the moment that we do get just go.
Let’s live as though life matters. Instead of lying in the sun turning
brown, or lazing in a chair just being, let’s ask ourselves what we are
doing and what we hope to achieve by our actions.
It may be that lying in the sun is exactly right for you. A nice tan may
help us attract a mate, or just make us feel good. It may be that the warm
glow of the sun is boosting our stocks of vitamin D and taking a good rest
is just what we needed to ‘recharge’.
It may also be a waste of otherwise productive time and lead to skin cancer
later in life.
Cheers
Rob.
I am stressing “know”, here, as in the working knowledge that gets us what
we need and want throughout our lives.
On a more physical level what we ‘need’ is sufficient food, shelter and
exercise to allow us to sustain our bodily functions over a reasonable
lifetime. It’s not unreasonable to hope for reasonable health, unstunted
growth and mental development over a period of say 30 years. It sounds
short, but it’s a minimum. Any more of that sort of life is quite a
blessing, any less verges on misfortune or even tragedy.
These physical needs are pretty much the bottom rung of Maslow’s famous
(and fairly obvious) hierarchy. And it does depend somewhat on where you
are, of course. If you are sitting under a burning sun in a sandy desert
then water would figure more highly, as would shade, food and some basic
survival information. Alone on the high seas and you’d want all of the
basics, plus a map would be handy.
But survival is more than just the basics. You can get by, or you can make
more of it and leverage your assets. To do this involves some core
knowledge. Whether you get it from me, from your parents, friends or
siblings; or if you just figure it out yourself, no matter: it will make
our lives somewhat brighter.
Firstly, we all die. Corollary, we get one shot at this. You may say,
‘Well, derr! As if I didn’t know that.” Sure, we all know it, but do you
live by it?
You may also believe in reincarnation, or an afterlife. Well and good, but
if you are wrong…let’s assume what we see is what we get, and accept for
the moment that we do get just go.
Let’s live as though life matters. Instead of lying in the sun turning
brown, or lazing in a chair just being, let’s ask ourselves what we are
doing and what we hope to achieve by our actions.
It may be that lying in the sun is exactly right for you. A nice tan may
help us attract a mate, or just make us feel good. It may be that the warm
glow of the sun is boosting our stocks of vitamin D and taking a good rest
is just what we needed to ‘recharge’.
It may also be a waste of otherwise productive time and lead to skin cancer
later in life.
Cheers
Rob.
Hmmm, the evolution of human humour and music. Where and why did it it
happen. I’ll give you a theory or two. Firstly, humour. Much of our
evolution is in theory revealed during our early childhood, so that gives
us a clue. Humour could derive from play. Play is a way to test ideas, to
push boundaries and to learn skills. It’s also useful as a socialising,
bonding tool. With our social complexity and a big brain it probably
doesn’t take much effort to use what we and many other animals have (the
play impulse) and turn it into more abstract jokes.
Another thought. Humour is often built on knowledge – you have to know
something in order to “get it”. By building a vast collection of facts
about our surroundings we leave ourselves open to observation of
incongruities. In fact we may need to spot incongruities in order to pick
the pattern that means danger or food or shelter. We’d select for exactly
that sort of thing. Having that in our evolutionary repertoire is but one
step away from seeing the humour or incongruity in things ‘going wrong’. It
doesn’t pose a disadvantage so it’s not going to be selected against and it
also helps bond the social group.
Now with music ask instead why did birds develop song? Probably sexual
selection. I’d say it’s similar for humans. Perhaps singing or rhythmic
noises evolved from our mimicry of birdsong and subsequently became
selected for its social advantages, like play. It may have become linked
with some other characteristics, even inadvertently, and continued to be
selected sexually. Rhythmic chants would also have been distinctive and by
changing pitch would have carried communicative possibilities, before
language itself developed.
How’s that sound?
Rob.
Hmmm, the evolution of human humour and music. Where and why did it it
happen. I’ll give you a theory or two. Firstly, humour. Much of our
evolution is in theory revealed during our early childhood, so that gives
us a clue. Humour could derive from play. Play is a way to test ideas, to
push boundaries and to learn skills. It’s also useful as a socialising,
bonding tool. With our social complexity and a big brain it probably
doesn’t take much effort to use what we and many other animals have (the
play impulse) and turn it into more abstract jokes.
Another thought. Humour is often built on knowledge – you have to know
something in order to “get it”. By building a vast collection of facts
about our surroundings we leave ourselves open to observation of
incongruities. In fact we may need to spot incongruities in order to pick
the pattern that means danger or food or shelter. We’d select for exactly
that sort of thing. Having that in our evolutionary repertoire is but one
step away from seeing the humour or incongruity in things ‘going wrong’. It
doesn’t pose a disadvantage so it’s not going to be selected against and it
also helps bond the social group.
Now with music ask instead why did birds develop song? Probably sexual
selection. I’d say it’s similar for humans. Perhaps singing or rhythmic
noises evolved from our mimicry of birdsong and subsequently became
selected for its social advantages, like play. It may have become linked
with some other characteristics, even inadvertently, and continued to be
selected sexually. Rhythmic chants would also have been distinctive and by
changing pitch would have carried communicative possibilities, before
language itself developed.
How’s that sound?
Rob.
Prattling on about cars and philosophy as one does, I wondered about the
meaning of Life. Does life have a meaning? Do our lives* need* meaning?
Is it enough to get meaning out of, say, knowing stuff about cars?
No, there’s no reason to believe there has to be a meaning, however…
If we assume there is a meaning, then I would say:
Meaning 1: Creation. We are here to reproduce the species and to create
ourselves and all things anew, both physically and intellectually. I
know this because it feels fantastic and “right” to do so.
Meaning 2: To Learn. We are here to question, to analyse, to absorb and
reflect, ultimately leading to learning. I know this because again it
feels fantastic and “right” to do so.
Meaning 3: To pass it on. It’s so good to share. I know this because it
feels fantastic and “right” to do so. There’s a wonderful feeling in
passing on a passion, a practical skill or an insight to another.
If there is no meaning then it’s all an accident and we are just acting
within the bounds of the natural laws of the dimensions we inhabit,
given the perspective of the self-awareness that emerges with a certain
degree and density of neurological interconnection. And that’s cool, too.
Does that answer the questions? If you can fulfill Meanings 1, 2 and 3
in any way, shape or form then it seems to make sense and feels “good”.
If you can’t get 1, 2 or 3 happening to whatever degree you desire then
you feel frustrated in some way. Which is not good. Knowing stuff and
passing it on seems OK. Having kids and teaching ‘em stuff seems OK,
too. Or just creating something – maybe restoring an old car – is good, too.
Mind you, all of that obeys the ‘no meaning’ possibility, too. It’s just
the way it happens given the natural laws that spring forth in the 4
spacetime dimensions that we regularly inhabit. In other dimensions or
at other points in spacetime different laws would (or may) apply.
Feel free to discuss.
Rob.
Prattling on about cars and philosophy as one does, I wondered about the
meaning of Life. Does life have a meaning? Do our lives* need* meaning?
Is it enough to get meaning out of, say, knowing stuff about cars?
No, there’s no reason to believe there has to be a meaning, however…
If we assume there is a meaning, then I would say:
Meaning 1: Creation. We are here to reproduce the species and to create
ourselves and all things anew, both physically and intellectually. I
know this because it feels fantastic and “right” to do so.
Meaning 2: To Learn. We are here to question, to analyse, to absorb and
reflect, ultimately leading to learning. I know this because again it
feels fantastic and “right” to do so.
Meaning 3: To pass it on. It’s so good to share. I know this because it
feels fantastic and “right” to do so. There’s a wonderful feeling in
passing on a passion, a practical skill or an insight to another.
If there is no meaning then it’s all an accident and we are just acting
within the bounds of the natural laws of the dimensions we inhabit,
given the perspective of the self-awareness that emerges with a certain
degree and density of neurological interconnection. And that’s cool, too.
Does that answer the questions? If you can fulfill Meanings 1, 2 and 3
in any way, shape or form then it seems to make sense and feels “good”.
If you can’t get 1, 2 or 3 happening to whatever degree you desire then
you feel frustrated in some way. Which is not good. Knowing stuff and
passing it on seems OK. Having kids and teaching ‘em stuff seems OK,
too. Or just creating something – maybe restoring an old car – is good, too.
Mind you, all of that obeys the ‘no meaning’ possibility, too. It’s just
the way it happens given the natural laws that spring forth in the 4
spacetime dimensions that we regularly inhabit. In other dimensions or
at other points in spacetime different laws would (or may) apply.
Feel free to discuss.
Rob.
Oh, one more important thought: how much of our disrespect for
institutions is based on our decreasing birthrate? The fact that we have
fewer children naturally means we invest a greater personal stake in
each child. We have higher expectations, plus we are empowered and
enriched by other changes in society. The effect is that we expect more
from our schools because we ourselves are ‘putting more in’. We can pay
for ‘better’, so we do.
Cheers
Rob.
Oh, one more important thought: how much of our disrespect for
institutions is based on our decreasing birthrate? The fact that we have
fewer children naturally means we invest a greater personal stake in
each child. We have higher expectations, plus we are empowered and
enriched by other changes in society. The effect is that we expect more
from our schools because we ourselves are ‘putting more in’. We can pay
for ‘better’, so we do.
Cheers
Rob.
Thinking about the pace of change (again), my belief is that our rate of
social and organisational change has exceeded our ability to adapt and
respond. There’s a lag between what happens day to day within society,
evidenced by behaviours, and our response as a community to those
changes. When we changed ‘slowly’ it was no problem, as changes occurred
we thought them through and came up with an adaptation of behaviour that
suited the new situation. Solutions ‘emerged’. We maintained a sort of
self-adjusting status quo. (This may not have been a good thing, I’m
just suggesting it was so.)
This is a very special time. The industrial age is morphing into the
virtual era and we really don’t know what to do.
Let me illustrate how societal changes have impacted our culture and
upset the status quo.
Starting with rights for women. Slow changes over a hundred years,
building into a crescendo of change – quite rightly – over say 20 years.
Expectations are reset, women increasingly become more educated, more
participative in society and in a broader range of activities. It’s
still not right and fair and equitable across the board, but my point is
to illustrate the lag and consequence of changed behaviours. A higher
percentage of women in the workforce means more daycare, more before and
after school care. It also has meant more demand for part-time work. It
has increased family incomes and thus demand for services and
time-saving devices. It has increased our spending on entertainment
products. But more significantly it moved responsibility for ‘care’ to
professionals, often with poor qualifications. It has changed the face
to face time spent by parents with children. Just a few points of
change, but our response as a community has been ad hoc with little
integration. How has this affected respect, or education? We don’t
really know, but suspect many subtle impacts.
This social change has also changed our family law. Whilst John Howard
may prefer the 50s, we have moved on. The family structures we have now
is a very different mix from the 50s. Where does discipline fit within
the new family? Or within education? Or with respect for institutions?
And privacy is bound up in all this as well. Now it’s expected that we
can protect our privacy, whereas in a village situation we knew
everyone’s business. However we also looked out for everyone and
‘policed’ errant behaviours. Society ‘self-policed’ within a natural
culture that simply emerged from the group. Now we have to legislate
what once simply emerged – and we have veered sharply away from the
group norm into a personal protective shield for the individual. Where
does discipline fit within the privacy act? How does it impact
education? Or respect for others, or our institutions?
But this is an integrated, complex set of relationships. In the 2 or 3
generations where we have made great social progress with rights for
women we have also, as Pat mentioned, recognised the rights of children.
(And I think that’s great, btw). But how have we planned for this? What
is the impact? We look back on the impact, we rarely plan ahead.
During this time of generational change we have also increasingly
diluted our ‘rule-based’ culture (where the law is held as final arbiter
and we tell the truth in court, even when family is involved) with many
cultures from ‘relationship-based’ cultures (where respect for our
relations is more important than the law and we will bend the truth to
protect our family).
We have also turned our social democracy into more of a free market,
operating globally, with many public institutions privatised. We have
also moved from a public-transport or pedestrian-based society into one
significantly based on private powered vehicles. We are now unlikely to
walk down the street to the shops, chatting to our neighbours as we go.
Instead we enter a sealed capsule and remain seated until we get to the
shops. How has that changed our view of discipline, or of education, or
of respect for those around us? Again, the village breaks down.
My grandparents owned the only car in our street in Marrickville (NSW,
Australia, suburb of Sydney) in the 1940s. Their neighbour later had the
only telephone in the ’60s. Back then the neighbourhood shared resources
and knew each other. It was a village. Now we have hacked villages
apart, sliced them in 2 with roads and moved shopping precincts into
giant soulless boxes. What’s the effect of that?
I can go on and on (and believe me I do) with the myriad changes that
are interwoven with the shifts in education, discipline, rights, privacy
and respect for authority… but basically we have shifted from a
community of daily reliance and thus respect for the people around us to
one of personal independence and disconnection, coupled with a greater
diversity of views, a greater opportunity to communicate opinion
instantly (ie via radio, TV, Internet) without actually having to meet
(and thus confront) anyone and a general additional layer of distance
from ‘the source’.
Perhaps our disrespect for politicians, for institutions and for public
education springs forth from this ‘disconnected’ communication? Where we
can state our opinions without serious challenge. Where community
leaders simply do what the opinion polls say would sell, rather than
take arms agaist the sea of troubles in front of us and actually lead?
We increasingly can’t see how things work, or where our electricity or
water comes from, we just know when someone somewhere has let us down in
the delivery and planning phases. And whinge. Or a few of us whinge and
the media blows it out of proportion. We sense public education is
falling apart and this is amplified by the media, relishing as it does
contention and angst. Never before in history have we faced this instant
mass communication, coupled as I say with freedom from challenge. We
feel this urge to criticise public institutions generally, including the
police, the law, parliament. What is driving this?
It’s not one thing. It’s everything. It’s so complex and so quickly
evolving that we may not see what’s happened for 50 years. And by then
we’ll have a whole new set of circumstances.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Thinking about the pace of change (again), my belief is that our rate of
social and organisational change has exceeded our ability to adapt and
respond. There’s a lag between what happens day to day within society,
evidenced by behaviours, and our response as a community to those
changes. When we changed ‘slowly’ it was no problem, as changes occurred
we thought them through and came up with an adaptation of behaviour that
suited the new situation. Solutions ‘emerged’. We maintained a sort of
self-adjusting status quo. (This may not have been a good thing, I’m
just suggesting it was so.)
This is a very special time. The industrial age is morphing into the
virtual era and we really don’t know what to do.
Let me illustrate how societal changes have impacted our culture and
upset the status quo.
Starting with rights for women. Slow changes over a hundred years,
building into a crescendo of change – quite rightly – over say 20 years.
Expectations are reset, women increasingly become more educated, more
participative in society and in a broader range of activities. It’s
still not right and fair and equitable across the board, but my point is
to illustrate the lag and consequence of changed behaviours. A higher
percentage of women in the workforce means more daycare, more before and
after school care. It also has meant more demand for part-time work. It
has increased family incomes and thus demand for services and
time-saving devices. It has increased our spending on entertainment
products. But more significantly it moved responsibility for ‘care’ to
professionals, often with poor qualifications. It has changed the face
to face time spent by parents with children. Just a few points of
change, but our response as a community has been ad hoc with little
integration. How has this affected respect, or education? We don’t
really know, but suspect many subtle impacts.
This social change has also changed our family law. Whilst John Howard
may prefer the 50s, we have moved on. The family structures we have now
is a very different mix from the 50s. Where does discipline fit within
the new family? Or within education? Or with respect for institutions?
And privacy is bound up in all this as well. Now it’s expected that we
can protect our privacy, whereas in a village situation we knew
everyone’s business. However we also looked out for everyone and
‘policed’ errant behaviours. Society ‘self-policed’ within a natural
culture that simply emerged from the group. Now we have to legislate
what once simply emerged – and we have veered sharply away from the
group norm into a personal protective shield for the individual. Where
does discipline fit within the privacy act? How does it impact
education? Or respect for others, or our institutions?
But this is an integrated, complex set of relationships. In the 2 or 3
generations where we have made great social progress with rights for
women we have also, as Pat mentioned, recognised the rights of children.
(And I think that’s great, btw). But how have we planned for this? What
is the impact? We look back on the impact, we rarely plan ahead.
During this time of generational change we have also increasingly
diluted our ‘rule-based’ culture (where the law is held as final arbiter
and we tell the truth in court, even when family is involved) with many
cultures from ‘relationship-based’ cultures (where respect for our
relations is more important than the law and we will bend the truth to
protect our family).
We have also turned our social democracy into more of a free market,
operating globally, with many public institutions privatised. We have
also moved from a public-transport or pedestrian-based society into one
significantly based on private powered vehicles. We are now unlikely to
walk down the street to the shops, chatting to our neighbours as we go.
Instead we enter a sealed capsule and remain seated until we get to the
shops. How has that changed our view of discipline, or of education, or
of respect for those around us? Again, the village breaks down.
My grandparents owned the only car in our street in Marrickville (NSW,
Australia, suburb of Sydney) in the 1940s. Their neighbour later had the
only telephone in the ’60s. Back then the neighbourhood shared resources
and knew each other. It was a village. Now we have hacked villages
apart, sliced them in 2 with roads and moved shopping precincts into
giant soulless boxes. What’s the effect of that?
I can go on and on (and believe me I do) with the myriad changes that
are interwoven with the shifts in education, discipline, rights, privacy
and respect for authority… but basically we have shifted from a
community of daily reliance and thus respect for the people around us to
one of personal independence and disconnection, coupled with a greater
diversity of views, a greater opportunity to communicate opinion
instantly (ie via radio, TV, Internet) without actually having to meet
(and thus confront) anyone and a general additional layer of distance
from ‘the source’.
Perhaps our disrespect for politicians, for institutions and for public
education springs forth from this ‘disconnected’ communication? Where we
can state our opinions without serious challenge. Where community
leaders simply do what the opinion polls say would sell, rather than
take arms agaist the sea of troubles in front of us and actually lead?
We increasingly can’t see how things work, or where our electricity or
water comes from, we just know when someone somewhere has let us down in
the delivery and planning phases. And whinge. Or a few of us whinge and
the media blows it out of proportion. We sense public education is
falling apart and this is amplified by the media, relishing as it does
contention and angst. Never before in history have we faced this instant
mass communication, coupled as I say with freedom from challenge. We
feel this urge to criticise public institutions generally, including the
police, the law, parliament. What is driving this?
It’s not one thing. It’s everything. It’s so complex and so quickly
evolving that we may not see what’s happened for 50 years. And by then
we’ll have a whole new set of circumstances.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I believe in and support the public education system, but systems,
particularly large scale ones with set objectives, scare me.
Whilst an educational ‘system’ solved a problem for Industrial age
Britain, education per se has existed for as long as we have functioned
as homo sapiens sapiens – and certainly before it was regulated,
controlled and given hard limits (our ‘curriculum’). Education was
local, adaptable, fluid and life-defining for the hunter-gatherers. It
truly meshed with culture and raw need. Now I see our rate of innovation
- both social and technological – advancing so fast that the education
system that we have – both private and public – is unable to keep up.
It’s trying to change, to break out of its box, but it’s hemmed in on
all sides.
We aren’t sure what the new goals of education are, or should be –
literacy, numeracy, yes, sure. A vocation? Probably. Critical thinking?
Hmmm. Defence against the Dark Arts? Maybe! But we create new
technologies and new jobs as quickly as we shed old ones. The sand
shifts as the newly educated spill into the streets. So do we teach
basic, generic skills and hope for the best, or do we instead accept
technology as an adjunct to our lives and build that in as a dynamic force?
It’s late, I’m still staring at a computer screen. My 6 year old asked
me what was my favourite DVD when I was a child. Well when I was 6 we
had only just got a TV, try to get your head around that, I tell her.
How do you explain this ever-increasing pace? How do we educate our
young to make the most of fluidity and change, of uncertainty yet
opportunity? Phew. Better stop, I’m ranting again.
Cheers
Rob
I believe in and support the public education system, but systems,
particularly large scale ones with set objectives, scare me.
Whilst an educational ‘system’ solved a problem for Industrial age
Britain, education per se has existed for as long as we have functioned
as homo sapiens sapiens – and certainly before it was regulated,
controlled and given hard limits (our ‘curriculum’). Education was
local, adaptable, fluid and life-defining for the hunter-gatherers. It
truly meshed with culture and raw need. Now I see our rate of innovation
- both social and technological – advancing so fast that the education
system that we have – both private and public – is unable to keep up.
It’s trying to change, to break out of its box, but it’s hemmed in on
all sides.
We aren’t sure what the new goals of education are, or should be –
literacy, numeracy, yes, sure. A vocation? Probably. Critical thinking?
Hmmm. Defence against the Dark Arts? Maybe! But we create new
technologies and new jobs as quickly as we shed old ones. The sand
shifts as the newly educated spill into the streets. So do we teach
basic, generic skills and hope for the best, or do we instead accept
technology as an adjunct to our lives and build that in as a dynamic force?
It’s late, I’m still staring at a computer screen. My 6 year old asked
me what was my favourite DVD when I was a child. Well when I was 6 we
had only just got a TV, try to get your head around that, I tell her.
How do you explain this ever-increasing pace? How do we educate our
young to make the most of fluidity and change, of uncertainty yet
opportunity? Phew. Better stop, I’m ranting again.
Cheers
Rob
|
|
