|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 12:24:33 GMT -5
not_meJune 28, 2012 9:53 AM
Yeah, there are two threads going on; I agree with what you're saying Elisa, but the we sorta confused things by talking about two different things at once
|
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 28, 2012 16:03:28 GMT -5
not_meJune 26, 2012 9:43 PM On a side note, I really *hate* the progressive stack concept, I mean I understand it, but really? Are we equal or not? Are we color blind or not? Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual white male, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I'd dislike it just as much if I wasn't. I like the part where you automatically go to the back of the line (or better, don't speak again until there is a new stack) - the whole race/gender/sexual orientation-based aspect doesn't really appeal to me either, but I'm a hetero black male, so WTF do I know? Another great example of why I'm pretty keen on finding ways to at least have the option of keeping people's ideas separate from their physical form within this process. |
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 16:48:09 GMT -5
not_meJune 26, 2012 9:43 PM On a side note, I really *hate* the progressive stack concept, I mean I understand it, but really? Are we equal or not? Are we color blind or not? Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual white male, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I'd dislike it just as much if I wasn't. I like the part where you automatically go to the back of the line (or better, don't speak again until there is a new stack) - the whole race/gender/sexual orientation-based aspect doesn't really appeal to me either, but I'm a hetero black male, so WTF do I know? Another great example of why I'm pretty keen on finding ways to at least have the option of keeping people's ideas separate from their physical form within this process. There's also the option of having the facilitator actually you know "facilitate" and read stack. Just to be clear IME stack is general announcements, and "heads ups" from the community. |
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 16:49:25 GMT -5
I like the part where you automatically go to the back of the line (or better, don't speak again until there is a new stack) - the whole race/gender/sexual orientation-based aspect doesn't really appeal to me either, but I'm a hetero black male, so WTF do I know? Totally agreed on the go to the back of the line, but that seems like a no-brainer to me.. |
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 28, 2012 17:16:11 GMT -5
Guess we're not so sansderp any more  I meant go to the back of the line if you've spoken already during this stack. I definitely support the idea of trying to make it easier for introverts to come out of their shell and contribute. Also the idea that some people like the sound of their own voice so much that half of what they are going to say can be classified as spam and should at least go last if we can't keep them from saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by kaymee on Jun 28, 2012 19:36:39 GMT -5
Elisa seems to have a passion for education that I share - that of an independent thinker and self-starter. I think what we are talking about here, though, is the dissemination of tools - not the dissemination of education. If people want to share knowledge and do group thinks, that's cool and always useful. But seems outside the mandate of this project?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 19:46:41 GMT -5
I agree in principle, however it is something that's going to need to be tackled and if Elisa wants to flesh out an idea I'd love to hear it.
However, I think the idea that Cy and NM were talking about was regarding stack. I haven't seen Elisa over here yet but once she's here we can get the ball rolling on whatever project she wants to work on.
|
|
|
|
Post by apokalypse1991 on Jun 28, 2012 21:15:28 GMT -5
At an early stage, "education" should involve what is required for the functioning of the frameworks discussed in other threads. For that reason, it would be relatively broad in scope to start. A good analogy might be to describe it as being undergraduate in character (a relatively broad swath of disciplines and associated skills). What can be provided as "education" could include various strategies including online links/coursework (examples elsewhere), or physical teach-ins about specific topics/concepts/skills, or a longer term series of classes about any of the above.
Over time, by gathering more support and thus more skills and areas of expertise, we could expand what is available to include more refined topics that cover relatively specific skill sets. It would have the dual effect of providing participants with a common language (discussed earlier), and an overarching theme (could be general, like: how not to be an asshat). We wouldn't attempt to force people, but engaging in the process would most likely facilitate successful interaction with whatever participatory group already exists.
We have mostly discussed GA skill sets like how to run meetings, facilitate, etc. I think that a very generalized knowledge base could help an activist community immensely. By having more knowledgeable participants, we increase the chances that each autonomous operator is better suited to represent the whole. This also reduces the impact that "hot-headedness" (discussed earlier) will carry the day, and it will allow the particular skills and aptitudes of individuals to come to the fore.
Too ambitious? ,)
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 23:59:23 GMT -5
At an early stage, "education" should involve what is required for the functioning of the frameworks discussed in other threads. For that reason, it would be relatively broad in scope to start. A good analogy might be to describe it as being undergraduate in character (a relatively broad swath of disciplines and associated skills). What can be provided as "education" could include various strategies including online links/coursework (examples elsewhere), or physical teach-ins about specific topics/concepts/skills, or a longer term series of classes about any of the above. Over time, by gathering more support and thus more skills and areas of expertise, we could expand what is available to include more refined topics that cover relatively specific skill sets. It would have the dual effect of providing participants with a common language (discussed earlier), and an overarching theme (could be general, like: how not to be an asshat). We wouldn't attempt to force people, but engaging in the process would most likely facilitate successful interaction with whatever participatory group already exists. We have mostly discussed GA skill sets like how to run meetings, facilitate, etc. I think that a very generalized knowledge base could help an activist community immensely. By having more knowledgeable participants, we increase the chances that each autonomous operator is better suited to represent the whole. This also reduces the impact that "hot-headedness" (discussed earlier) will carry the day, and it will allow the particular skills and aptitudes of individuals to come to the fore. Too ambitious? ,) ba! Nothing is too ambitious! Three things I think will help with this. EDIT: okay it was four... Wiki: duh. Report Back: Running a post mortem on actions, as well as discussing how that action applies to future actions. Report backs should be hosted in the common wiki. Pollinate: Meeting once a week with affiliates to discuss how everyone can help each other/ arrange skill shares/ arrange teach ins/ volunteer opportunities. minutes posted it's own weekly updated wiki. Educate: Have the base lexicon of the "movement" community in as many places as possible. Hold "brush up" meetings every time you have five to ten new folks come in, have them sit in with each functioning arm, ie strategy, logistics, finance, etc. As well as hold a class to teach the very basics of the excepted lexicon of that community. The sit ins with each "dept" allows them to see the lexicon used in several ways, throughout the community. It also helps to introduce them around, get to know folks, and help them decide what they want to be involved in that matches their existing skill set, and what they can add to the community. At the end of this period each person should be asked to contribute an assessment to the wiki in the interest of transparency and future improvement. They obviously wouldn't have to if the didn't want to. |
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 29, 2012 0:09:19 GMT -5
Guess we're not so sansderp any more I meant go to the back of the line if you've spoken already during this stack. oh, thats what I meant, sorry I wasn't clear (addendum) I was speaking about the same thing, to me there is nothing 'progressive' about that, it just seems like common sense, you've had your chance, now its time for everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jun 29, 2012 12:00:38 GMT -5
I am not sure if we are speaking about two different things. Very generally, we are all talking about some kind of change or revolution in some form. The problem is that we are all, as we are now aware, indoctrinated to some extent through public ed, mass media, consumerism, money, & various other tools of social control.
The problem with revolutions is that if you don't think things through carefully you will eventually re-construct the system you were born into. This can be seen in the Russian communist revolution. Actually, it can probably be seen in any revolution. It doesn't only apply to politics... just change in the general structure of anything.
If you use a system that is based on the underlying methodologies of the system into which most of us were born to prepare participants for a future with Occupy & beyond, the students will continue to think in terms of mass education which is one of the most insidious methods of social control we have. Eventually, they would copy the systems that they are struggling against. Not that public education is all bad... but the initial intent behind it was to control the American culture & society. (Mass ed was modeled on the prison/asylum system.)
So, that's my philosophical argument. In practice, I am only suggesting that instead of generic curriculum, there should be a democratic, non-invasive, self-directed approach. Eliminate the division of knowledge into subject areas. Eliminate the imposition of knowledge onto the student. No specific order is necessary in learning. (some of that may have been plagerized) The order has only been necessary because of the structure of mass ed. People still say math and world language has a specific structure. I disagree with that. (Okay that was mine.)
If you are looking to teach skills, they should be learned in the pursuit of the students' goals. You don't know how to type, well to fulfill your objective, you are going to have to learn that. Here are some resources, I'm available for assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by apokalypse1991 on Jun 29, 2012 15:47:20 GMT -5
I agree with your assessment of some of the danger of revolutionary movements, but there is a real dilemma with providing the super-structure to an organic quest for knowledge and understanding. Self-direction education can be done at any time, by anyone. What I am suggesting we try to provide is the framework for a more participatory and smoother functioning democracy than what we have going on now.
Part of the problem with a lack of knowledge and understanding is that the "student" in this case, might not know what they do not know. While it would be theoretically impossible to provide a form of education for everyone based on individual goals, we could provide a framework that will not only enhance an individual's capacity to further their own education, but also to participate more fully in the processes we outline here.
For those reasons, it should first be general in nature, and graduated in complexity. Not to mimic a decrepit system, but to allow people to bypass areas where they already possess competency, and to build upon previous knowledge/experience. Just because we want to reform our system of governance does not mean an examination of previous forms/attempts are an invalid study. Furthermore, it also means that in order to really understand the forces that motivated these previous iterations at democracy, we would have to look at the intellectual/religious/social/economic/etc realities of those times and places. If we were to teach discourse; there would be certain historical examples to look to; and the same if we were to discuss resistance movements across history. My point becomes even more plain if we are talking about highly specialized or technical skills, where a basic foundation must be achieved before moving on to more complex procedures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 29, 2012 15:52:51 GMT -5
For those reasons, it should first be general in nature, and graduated in complexity. Not to mimic a decrepit system, but to allow people to bypass areas where they already possess competency, and to build upon previous knowledge/experience. Just because we want to reform our system of governance does not mean an examination of previous forms/attempts are an invalid study. Furthermore, it also means that in order to really understand the forces that motivated these previous iterations at democracy, we would have to look at the intellectual/religious/social/economic/etc realities of those times and places. If we were to teach discourse; there would be certain historical examples to look to; and the same if we were to discuss resistance movements across history. My point becomes even more plain if we are talking about highly specialized or technical skills, where a basic foundation must be achieved before moving on to more complex procedures. IAWTC |
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 29, 2012 16:28:48 GMT -5
I am not sure if we are speaking about two different things. Very generally, we are all talking about some kind of change or revolution in some form. The problem is that we are all, as we are now aware, indoctrinated to some extent through public ed, mass media, consumerism, money, & various other tools of social control. The problem with revolutions is that if you don't think things through carefully you will eventually re-construct the system you were born into. This can be seen in the Russian communist revolution. Actually, it can probably be seen in any revolution. It doesn't only apply to politics... just change in the general structure of anything. If you use a system that is based on the underlying methodologies of the system into which most of us were born to prepare participants for a future with Occupy & beyond, the students will continue to think in terms of mass education which is one of the most insidious methods of social control we have. Eventually, they would copy the systems that they are struggling against. Not that public education is all bad... but the initial intent behind it was to control the American culture & society. (Mass ed was modeled on the prison/asylum system.) So, that's my philosophical argument. In practice, I am only suggesting that instead of generic curriculum, there should be a democratic, non-invasive, self-directed approach. Eliminate the division of knowledge into subject areas. Eliminate the imposition of knowledge onto the student. No specific order is necessary in learning. (some of that may have been plagerized) The order has only been necessary because of the structure of mass ed. People still say math and world language has a specific structure. I disagree with that. (Okay that was mine.) If you are looking to teach skills, they should be learned in the pursuit of the students' goals. You don't know how to type, well to fulfill your objective, you are going to have to learn that. Here are some resources, I'm available for assistance. IAWTC. I wouldn't want to force people to learn much of anything. Forcing people to learn X just teaches them to hate the subject and/or the school in many cases. Also, since we don't run a municipal school district let alone a nation-state, we can't really force anyone to do anything. This being the case, it is necessary to make it as appealing as possible to gain knowledge that everyone (including the student) feels will enhance one's ability to participate productively in the horizontal decision making process. In short, I think the basic premise should be more carrot ("Meetings will suck less and produce better results if you read this and do this exercise a few times!") and less stick ("We won't accept your input in this process that already kind of sucks until you read this and do this exercise the number of times that we feel is appropriate!"). |
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 29, 2012 18:03:17 GMT -5
Read more: garemodel.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=8&page=1#ixzz1zE0HsjRqAnonymousJune 28, 2012 6:00 AM (Elisa) Ok, so how about this. Decide on educational objectives. Is the focus going to be academic, vocational, or behavioral. Are you interested in teaching people to follow instructions, use stuff, or to be the stuff creators. 101 classes are unnecessary. Why not let the students discover their own philosophies and how to apply them (methodologies)? Recruitment would be a separate process. You would avoid people who would not be a good fit because they would know that & choose not to become involved. There would be data from their studies & a good behavioral interview could be done to weed out anyone else. We're basically saying the same thing here, and some how this turned into discussing a soul crushing education system. I feel that a "generalized curriculum" "forced" on anyone is a bad idea, but, there is a basis of knowledge that everyone should have *ACCESS* to. My only point is that everyone has a right to a basic education *how* that is implemented, I'm not qualified to say. Provide the information for people to reach their own understanding. |
|
I meant go to the back of the line if you've spoken already during this stack. I definitely support the idea of trying to make it easier for introverts to come out of their shell and contribute. Also the idea that some people like the sound of their own voice so much that half of what they are going to say can be classified as spam and should at least go last if we can't keep them from saying it.