[From Rick Marken (01.04.05.1330)]
Bruce Nevin (010303 20:58 EDT)
Rick, you've got to love this one.
...The deaths and injuries that you will receive from here
on will be your own fault and not that of his majesty
nor of the gentlemen that accompany me.
Yes. Excellent example of the problem (for me) with the "I
see you have chosen..." statement. When the Indians
"disrupted" (by not accepting the Pope and the King) the
Spanish said "I see you have chosen to be exterminated".
Best regards
Rick
[From Bruce Nevin (010303 20:58 EDT)]
Rick Marken (01.04.05.1330)--
At 13:25 04/05/2001 -0700, RickMindReadings wrote:
Excellent example of the problem (for me) with the "I
see you have chosen..." statement. When the Indians
"disrupted" (by not accepting the Pope and the King) the
Spanish said "I see you have chosen to be exterminated".
There are of course important differences.
Bruce Nevin
[From Rick Marken (01.04.05.1005)]
Me:
Excellent example of the problem (for me) with the "I
see you have chosen..." statement. When the Indians
"disrupted" (by not accepting the Pope and the King) the
Spanish said "I see you have chosen to be exterminated".
Bruce Nevin (010303 20:58 EDT)--
There are of course important differences.
Of course. The Spanish, for example, would have said "Veo
que ha eligido...".
Hasta Luego
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2001.04.06.0610 MDT)]
Bruce Nevin (010303 20:58 EDT)--
Rick Marken (01.04.05.1330)--
Excellent example of the problem (for me) with the "I
see you have chosen..." statement. When the Indians
"disrupted" (by not accepting the Pope and the King) the
Spanish said "I see you have chosen to be exterminated".There are of course important differences.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't change the principle or, to be frank, the
dishonesty behind the "I see you have chosen" formulation. Whether you
steal a million dollars or ten dollars, it's still stealing. Nobody can see
another person "choosing" something -- all you can see are the overt
actions. To claim you can see what a person has chosen is to claim to be
able to do what nobody can do. You can infer, or guess, or deduce what
another person has chosen, but that is dependent on premises and the
completeness of your data. It's just a guess, and it reveals more about
your personal biases than about the other person.
I don't understand what's so difficult about this. Do you think you can
literally "see" what another person has chosen? Isn't there some human
fallibility involved here? Or a lot of it? When a teacher says she sees a
child has chosen to leave the classroom, and this happens to be the child
who is later discovered to be sold into prostitution by his older brother
every day after school, does this formulation do justice to the child's
reasons for disrupting the class? Isn't it just glib and facile, as well as
needlessly hostile? Isn't it a claim to omniscience where no such thing
exists? Isn't it a way of blaming the child for the action the adult
chooses to take? Isn't it
a way of making it seem that the child is acting freely when in fact the
threat of force is only thinly disguised?
I don't understand what the problem is here, or even why there is a
problem. Are you trying to justify something you have done to children and
don't want to feel was wrong? Are you trying to excuse someone for having
done it to you? I can only guess, and so far it doesn't seem that I have
come near the mark. Is there some simple obvious argument I'm overlooking?
Best,
Bill P.
At 13:25 04/05/2001 -0700, RickMindReadings wrote:
[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0406.0927)]
Bill Powers (2001.04.06.0610 MDT)
I don't understand what's so difficult about this. Do you think you can
literally "see" what another person has chosen?
I see you have chosen to keep trying to breathe life into this moribund and
inane thread. I repeat my modest suggestion that we agree to declare that
anyone who uses the phrase "I see you have chosen" is anathema. Needless to
say, I so declare myself.
BG
[From Bruce Nevin (010406 12:20 EDT)]
Bill Powers (2001.04.06.0610 MDT)--
I don't understand what the problem is here, or even why there is a
problem. Are you trying to justify something you have done to children and
don't want to feel was wrong? Are you trying to excuse someone for having
done it to you? I can only guess, and so far it doesn't seem that I have
come near the mark. Is there some simple obvious argument I'm overlooking?
No, No, and Yes, though what is obvious is not an argument, nor am I seeking an argument in the other sense of the word. The relevant differences have nothing to do with the dishonesty (which is conceded), much less whether and how much plundering is associated with it. It has to do with communication, both present and prior, with intention, however well or ineptly controlled, and with long-term effects in the community where it happens, which (being sustained against disturbance) are evidence for intentions. Only when we look at these larger ends in the school setting can we look for and perhaps even find alternative means that are not dishonest in this way. And no, simply reducing interference with teaching in the classroom is not what I am talking about. (Analogously for Columbus and his successors wrt present-day institutions and how "white" Europeans and Americans are perceived in most of the world, but that is another matter.)
At 06:41 04/06/2001 -0600, Bill Powers wrote: