Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Complexity Interpretation...

From: Victoria Serda <>
Date: Mon Dec 2 00:12:00 2002

Dear David,
Interesting. I accept that you have made some good points, I will note
them below, by underlining my response...

David Rovner wrote:

> No, Victoria, I don't have any suggestion about how to operate a
> school that would have at least nominal acceptance in society without
> government approval -- but I do have a much better solution: end
> government involvement in education -- Separate School & State. Please
> see: and
> (Israel).
> This is a very good point. But for now, temporary measures must be
> used until the separation is effected.
> >It is good to keep in mind how far one wants to water down one's
> principles to fulfill a goal, but what I meant is sometimes the goal
> is worth adding a little water to the mix.< That way of thinking is
> the reason why the moral state of OUR world is in such a bad shape.
> I don't see how life can be lived without making compromises in one
> way or another. It is totally dependent on the situation, and my point
> is that each person must decide how to make those compromises. If we
> didn't make compromises, we would be locked up.;-)
> Keep on -- and keep also wishing "a better world for us and for our
> children" and/or "a long lasting peace," etc., etc. -- One cannot
> achieve the victory of one's ideas by helping to propagate the
> opposite.
> I don't believe that my ways of working toward these kinds of goals in
> a practical way that works right now is propogating the oopposite. Do
> you mean to say that unless you are doing something extreme, there is
> no worth?
> >I also believe it is possible that two parties can make a compromise
> fitting both viewpoints objectives without agreeing to a common
> fundamental principle.< I see that as a very undesirable thing:1.In
> any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic
> principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
> I have seen a different thing happen, where the most persistent one
> wins. This is not always desirable. Thus, between two people who have
> the same principles, the desirable outcome (to whom, I may ask) may
> not be effected.
> 2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold
> different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who
> wins.
> Again, I have usually seen that the most persistent and energetic one
> often wins, and sometimes the rational one wins.
> 3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it
> works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly
> defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the
> irrational side.
> Hmmm, I am not sure of the rationality of this ;-) I again feel it
> could be either way. Sometimes it helps me to have more understanding
> of priciples in order to effect change, and soemtimes it is
> detrimental. Therefore, I have disputed your three arguments so that I
> still believe my first statement. 8-)
> Ayn Rand WAS definitely against anarchy: . . . Anarchy, as a
> political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the
> reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government
> would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who
> would precipitate it in the chaos of gang warfare . . .
> I am glad you clarified this for me, for it would not be good for me
> to be assuming false premises. I therefore, though, do not understand
> what her political platform would be. Can you enlighten me on this
> subject? It appears to me that her ideas may be contradictory ;-}
> Suit yourself.
> I don't like suits myself. ;-)
> Incidentaly, aren't you Spanish speaking?
> Actually no, I am married to a Spanish speaking man of Aztec ancestry.
> I am a true Canadian multi-cultural mix primarily of Scottish, Italian
> and Native blood. My maiden name meant victorious peace-Victoria Pace.
> ~ David
> Thanks for the interesting discussion. I will now get back to my
> thesis on self-directed schools,
> Victoria
Received on Mon Dec 02 2002 - 00:11:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:04 EDT