[Discuss-sudbury-model] World View ?

From: David Rovner <rovners_at_netvision.net.il>
Date: Thu Jul 22 17:05:01 2004

Does this mean there is no *objective* "good" or "evil", Don ?

~ David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Yates" <dyates_at_yatesassociates.com>
To: <discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Newspaper Article Mountain Laurel
Sudbury School

> Hi - I'm a bit late into this conversation but have been away for a couple
> of weeks [only 949 emails in the box].
>
> The fact is that someone from an old paradigm cannot judge a new paradigm
> because they literally cannot see or experience it. If you have ever seen
> the old woman/young woman optical illusion you can understand this
> experientially. People who see one but not the other cannot believe that
the
> other exists. For me [based on the work of Thomas Kuhn] a paradigm is a
set
> of beliefs through which we see the world. That IS the world for us. When
I
> believe the earth is the center of the universe I cannot encompass the
idea
> that the sun might be.
>
> From my experience and studies, I believe that one cannot hold two
paradigms
> at one time. If I believe the world is round I can no longer see it as
flat.
> I can talk to people who think it is flat because I was there [if I can
see
> both old and young woman I can talk to someone who only sees one - this is
> not quite the same as changing paradigm. However, you cannot hold both
> pictures in your mind at the same time]. They cannot understand what I am
> talking about. If they could, they would see the world as round.
>
> So in our case we all hold a completely different set of beliefs than
> traditional education people. We believe children can learn on their own.
> They believe they can't. Given that they cannot hold in their mind even
the
> possibility that a child could. The process we might set up so that a
child
> can learn on their own -- no classes, no curriculum, etc. -- are
irrelevant.
> They cannot even be considered under the set of beliefs through which they
> view education - their paradigm. This means that engaging in a
conversation
> about processes is really futile. What we have to work on is changing the
> underlying beliefs - the paradigm. I am trying to do this in the work
world
> around how organizations are designed and operated. I can tell you that it
> is extremely difficult to even get people to talk about the underlying
> beliefs much less change them.
>
> Don Yates
>
>
> "I once heard someone say that you should never let someone from the old
> paradigm judge something of the new. In that case they were talking
about
> charter schools, which have contracts with traditional institutions and
then
> have to prove that they're doing a good job every few years---to their
> competition!
>
> I think we can always offer a new framework for thinking, but I'm not
> surprised any more when others don't see it that way. Or at least I try
not
> to be. They often have a lot invested in the alternative; a career, a
child
> they've pushed through the current system, a sense that at least something
> needs to stay stable in this messed-up world.
>
> Karen Locke"
Received on Thu Jul 22 2004 - 17:04:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:08 EDT