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

From: Jason Jay <jason_at_jasonjay.com>
Date: Mon Dec 2 00:21:00 2002

I like the connection between persistent rationality and Victorious
Peace, Victoria. It reminds me of Gandhi.
 
-Jason
______________________________________________________
"Fighting with another makes war, but
     struggling with one's self brings peace."
                 -Hazrat Inayat Khan

     http://www.jasonjay.com
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-sudbury-model-admin_at_sudval.org
[mailto:discuss-sudbury-model-admin_at_sudval.org] On Behalf Of Victoria
Serda
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 12:11 AM
To: discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Complexity Interpretation...
 
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: http://www.sepschool.org/ and
http://www.sepschool.org/cgi/RegDisp.cgi/global (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 - 00:20:57 EST

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