Eduardo Cortina (email@example.com)
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:04:14 -0500
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:49:39 EST Avenfeliz1@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 11/10/00 11:18:42 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << I guess it gets back to what Joe Jackson was saying, whether one
> is a
> reformer or a revolutionary. I used to belong to the former camp.
> I am neither. I don't belong to "camps". That gets into the attack
> defend mode, and I'm not into that. I've learned that it's counter
> productive. I like the Sudbury Model. And I will promote it in any
> way that
> I can. But I will not fight people by attacking their beliefs or
> ideas to do
> it. In kind, I will respect people I work with even if they don't
> believe in
> the Sudbury Model. How can I cast them aside or chastise them
> because they
> don't believe what I believe?
> I don't see it as a question of belief or disbelief. There is a
difference between freedom of thought or belief, and freedom in one's
thoughts or beliefs. Freedom of thought is great, but freedom in thought
is something different. This involves the flexibility of mind to
question the validity of one's own ideas and not stick to a belief and
defend it no matter what evidence may contradict it.
Challenging a way of thinking is what leads to learning-- call it an
attack if you will. It's purpose is precisely to break down a system or
paradigm. If it is not challenged, how will it change? I don't
necessarily respect people who are unwilling to consider reasonable
arguments, but I agree with you that I would respect their decision to
not do so (although I wouldn't want to live or work with them,
personally). I also think its possible to ask people the right kind of
questions so they don't feel "attacked" personally and can discover for
themselves whether their beliefs are accurate. However, if they are
unwilling to change even in the face of solid evidence, not much can be
done. Many people will keep their focus on tying to fix the symptoms (of
public schooling) because that's what we have been conditioned to do in
this society (and a lot of this conditioning happens in our educational
institutions). The symptoms or outcomes of public schooling are not the
causes, however. I think Bruce and others have realized this and decided
to give up trying to fix what cannot be fixed without throwing the whole
foundation of it out completely.
I think it can be difficult to actually take a look at causes because
this often leads to real change and involves an exploration of the
unknown, which can be terrifying to a mind that has been taught to accept
ways of doing things without question. This is the beauty of of the SVM.
It gives everyone involved the opportunity to think for themselves, to
be real individuals, and not obey the hord instinct.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 19:48:14 EST