There is an exact definition of what makes up a Sudbury School:
See Sudbury Valley School writings.
David Rovner firstname.lastname@example.org
--------- Original Message ----------
>From: Martin Wilke <email@example.com>
>Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:13:38 +0200
>Subject: Re: DSM: On Hybrid schools . . . Our Trojon Horse?
>Joe Jackson schrieb:
>> therefore, the
>> distinction of a hybrid school is not semantic to me. It's either Sudbury
>> or it's not.
>But there is no exact definition of what makes up a Sudbury School.
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Ardeshir
>> > Mehta, N.D.
>> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:35 PM
>> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Subject: Re: DSM: On Hybrid schools . . . Our Trojon Horse?
>> > Hi everyone:
>> > Scott David Gray wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > The very thing that has made Sudbury Schools successful is
>> > > the fact that the trust and freedom are COMPLETE. ...
>> > I wonder to what extent the arguments for and against "hy-
>> > brid" schools are merely semantic rather than basic.
>> > One of my loves is logic, and I have found that in logic,
>> > whenever one employs terms such as "absolute", "total",
>> > "infinite", "complete", etc., one gets into absurd situations.
>> > Thus, for instance, a hypothetically All-Powerful Being
>> > must have the power to ask a question that He Himself
>> > cannot possibly answer! This is of course quite absurd.
>> > Similarly, if one gives others COMPLETE freedom, that
>> > must include the freedom to take away the freedom of oth-
>> > ers, and to keep it that way for ever and ever!
>> > In that case, freedom cannot really be COMPLETE, now
>> > can it. It can only be *nearly* complete. *Totally* com-
>> > plete freedom entails also the total *lack* of freedom --
>> > which is a paradox.
>> > These "paradoxes", however, like the "Liar Paradox" and
>> > the "Berry Paradox" -- i.e., the paradoxes of saying "This
>> > sentence is false" (which is false even if it is true, and true
>> > even if it is false!) and claiming that "The undefinable can be
>> > defined as <That which cannot be defined>" (which allows
>> > one to actually define the undefinable!) -- are merely seman-
>> > tic, and have nothing to do with reality. They come about
>> > because of the limitations of language. One can *enunciate*
>> > them, but one cannot have them in reality: i.e., one cannot
>> > bring them to others "on a platter", as it were.
>> > Likewise, I think arguments about "TOTAL freedom", etc.,
>> > are also merely semantic, and have nothing to do with real-
>> > ity. The human mind, being incomplete and finite, just can-
>> > not tackle the concept of completeness and totality. It
>> > sometimes *thinks* it can do so, but that's an illusion.
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Ardeshir
>> > Home Page: <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html
>> > ************************************************
>> > BTW: If anyone is interested in exploring this "paradox
>> > problem" further, I have discussed it in detail in my book
>> > *Critique of Gödel's Theorem*, available for download
>> > from my Home Page.
>> > A.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
email@example.com with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST