Re: DSM: Sharing the SVS model


Robert Swanson (robertswanson@icehouse.net)
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:37:35 -0800


(See rick's question below)

As far as I can tell, the intellect seems to find an idea to sit on
comfortably, having decided that such is what SHOULD be. For example, babies
should be born in the hospital in a cold room with bright lights, crying,
quickly cut from the umbilical cord and removed from its mother for medical
treatment. This the intellect regards as what SHOULD be that the infants
life is potentiated to the highest. And this may be true given the
intellects isolated view of development. What if there is another way (one
that does not scar the baby's brain and emotions)? SVS goes a long way
taking the child out of prison and placing them in a field of dreams. Still,
I suspect that development at SVS is simply WHAT IS SO and thus what SHOULD
be. Yes, they are paying attention to human development. But is there more?

What if school was about the evolution of development? What if a singular
idea does not contain all possibilities? What if it was not scary to KNOW
THYSELF? Then we could play with who I am in relation to a changing,
developing environment and personal relationships. Rather than reacting to
these things, we strive to realize them as toys of perception. No doubt, SVS
is already going in this direction allowing children the freedom to find
themselves. Now, what if there is also a procedure to finding and developing
self? What if this procedure is part of natural development but is not
included in the SVS model? Joseph Pearce said the quality of models is
essential to development (creative, open hearted models). If models at SVS
(& home) are deliberately absent as intentional influences in children's
lives then they have omitted an essential element from development. Now, it
is also true that Pearce did not get it all in one idea. So the real
question is whether we are willing to belittle fear, ignorance and doubt,
and then, laughing, explore the possibilities for evolution.

I simply do not appreciate sitting on one clump of grass when there is a
whole countryside to explore.

happily romping,
robert

on 11/12/00 7:43 PM, Rick Stansberger at rickstan@zianet.com wrote:
> I mean what's the difference between "human development" and "the evolution of
> developing human potential"? they sound the same to me, but you have them
> listed
> as points 2 and 3 respectively.
>
> Rick
>
> Robert Swanson wrote:
>
>> on 11/11/00 2:39 PM, Rick Stansberger at rickstan@zianet.com wrote:
>>
>>> What's the difference between 2) and 3)?
>>> Rick
>>
>> Learning, as presented in public school, emphasizes intellect. Because other
>> aspects of development are not reinforced adequately, development is largely
>> left at the three to four year level. Essentially, this is non-development.
>> The Sudbury difference is that it allows development through play,
>> exploration, communication, sexuality, self-determination, friendship,
>> joy...
>>
>> robert
>>
>>> Robert Swanson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to suggest three paradigms:
>>>> 1) School is about learning (public school)
>>>> 2) School is about human development (SVS)
>>>> 3) School is about the evolution of developing human potential (wisdom
>>>> school)
>>>>
>>>> The idea of learning THINGS is so big in our society it seems to cast a
>>>> shadow over human development. We put as a second consideration the
>>>> character development of an individual.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Melvin Morse (who writes about NDE's of children) said school
>>>> emphasizes
>>>> the left side of the brain. It does so by emphasizing verbal activity.
>>>> Words
>>>> keep us busy accessing the past and future. On the other hand, the right
>>>> lobe of the brain is timeless and nonverbal. Its communication is focused
>>>> on
>>>> feelings, intuition and depth perception. Right lobe communication
>>>> references the broader environment.
>>>>
>>>> When we get out of the intellect, it is not a question discerning this one
>>>> thing is right and that one thing is wrong and here we sit. Rather,
>>>> feelings
>>>> are concerned with how much happier do we want to evolve right now. Life is
>>>> a continuum of creativity and choice.
>>>>
>>>> robert



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 13 2000 - 10:57:34 EST