Re: DSM: dancing

Anne and Theo Julienne (
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:40:06 +1100

You are quite right in all your points here - at least, I find myself in
agreement with you!
Your summing up was especially apt.
Those on any listserve should understand that a new member like me might
want to discuss this issue for the three-trillion-and-oneth time (or, for
me, the first time). I have read past archives but I wasn't involved in
those discussions. I want to discuss the issue in my own way, on my own
terms. I want to participate, not just read up revelations-set-in-stone.
I also felt that I introduced the issue in what may be a new context: that
of considering educational paradigms at a very early planning stage for
starting up a school.
I emphasised the "dancing" metaphor because this is a dynamic image: the
body in balanced coordination but ever flowing into new forms. Not static.
Not set-in-stone.
Sorry if it sounded "rude". (It did "work" though, didn't it?)

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Jackson <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: DSM: dancing

> > Some minds are more open than others.
> > A closed "Sudbury" mind is still a closed mind.
> We've had this conversation here before, recently.
> There are always ways of saying certain things about people that can make
> them sound like total asses. It's called "spinning".
> One way of saying that someone "believes in and sticks to principles they
> have discovered and tested through their life experiences" is saying that
> they are "closed-minded".
> Not useful. The issue of class offerings has been discussed three
> times by people interested in the Sudbury Model over the last thirty
> for someone to discover that folks have some fairly firm opinions about
> and subsequently label that as "closed-minded" attempts to negate the life
> experiences and resulting found principles of "Sudbury minds" and any
> kind of mind.
> If, on the other hand we are speaking of the *real* definition of someone
> who is "close-minded" as someone who doesn't want to hear or consider the
> ideas of others, my response is that someone who does not want to consider
> the ideas of others would not only be allergic to public listserves, but
> wouldn't be caught dead helping create and live in one of the only
> environments in the world where the open expression of the ideas of
> is self-evident.
> But I think the comment made out of frustration and was intended to spin
> perception of people who answered a little too quickly and firmly for the
> questioner's taste.
> Please correct me if I am wrong. :)
> -Joe Jackson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:24 EST