Interesting story about some very wealthy liberals trying (via the "Democracy Alliance") to do for progressive causes what conservatives did themselves in the 1970s, namely, create an infrastructure for public policy think tanks. Kwote:
Between 1972 and 1999, conservatives created at least sixty new organizations with mission statements modeled after that of the Heritage Foundation, a radical think tank at the time of its founding: "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." When pollster Celinda Lake asked a group of white Midwestern swing voters in 2004 what conservatives stood for, most of them repeated those catchphrases. When she asked the same question about liberals, half the voters responded, "I don't know."
In its early stages the Alliance, following the lead of Heritage, attempted to hammer out a mission statement for the organization. A year later the document is still a work in progress. Wade says the goal of the Alliance is to strengthen democracy. "That means an actively engaged citizenry...real solutions to critical issues...and a democracy not dominated by the far right," she says. Laudable goals, but hardly a road map for changing public policy. "There are pragmatists and there are activists," partners say Wade frequently tells them, "and I'm a pragmatist and that's where this organization should be." Needless to say, the early conservative activists, whether at National Review or on Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, couldn't have disagreed more.
Of course, part of the reason conservative think tanks were successful is that there was little to no competition. Whereas creating an infrastructure for liberal think tanks does — it's called major American universities.
PARIS, Sept. 29 — A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum.
The teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, wrote in the center-right daily Le Figaro 10 days ago that Muhammad was “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist,” and called the Koran “a book of incredible violence.”
The Redeker case is the latest manifestation in Europe of a mounting ideological battle that pits those who believe Islam and the Prophet Muhammad can be criticized in the name of free speech against those in the Muslim community who believe no criticism can be tolerated.
Speech should always be free, save yelling fire in a theater (and its equivalents). It ought be protected and defended whenever necessary. And it can be responded to, with other speech, and that is exactly how it should be. Because no one ever died from being yelled at.
This essay, first written in May 2003, has been added to, revised, and tweaked many times since; including recently, when I added an "Epilogue" to the end, on the value of one's shadow as it relates to artistry.
Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.
...and contains an informative year-by-year summary of what al-Qaeda did while Clinton was president, and ends with:
While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.
I quote from yesterday's Tony Blair speech in England, and then bounce of his words to pose what some might feel is a challenging question about contemporary artistry. Some might also feel it is a false choice, or something vile. That is for you to decide, but you can only do so if you read more here.
Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is surely distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.
Damn right. Or as Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it: we stand for the right to offend.
Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very).
Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very).
The University of Chicago's Graham School of General Studies (within which lives my Basic Program), this fall started a new program, a parallel of sorts to the Basic Program. It is the Asian Classics Certificate Program.
It looks fantastic. The stucture is the same as the Basic Program. Four years, three quarters each year that last 10 weeks each. Of course, the content is vastly different: Year One, classics from India; Year Two, classics from the Middle East; Year Three, classics from China; and Year Four, classics from Japan.
Works studied include:
The Rig Veda The Upanishads The Mahabharata The Bhagavad Gita The Shammapada The Lotus Sutra The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (Nagarjuna) The Ramayana The Tale of the Anklet The Bijak of Kabir The Qu'ran The Risalah: Principles of Sufism The Conference of the Birds Masnavi (Rumi) The Muqaddimah 1001 Nights Zuo Zhuan I Ching Analects (Confucius) Tao Te Ching Chuang Tzu The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma The Sutra of Hui-Neng Kojiki The Tale of Genji Narrow Road to the Deep North (Basho) Shobogenzo (Dogen)
... and much much more. Perhaps after I finish the four years of the Basic Program, and could go right into the four-years of the Asian Classics program. I don't know, but it is quite appealing. A close study of both Western classics and Eastern classics, over 8 years? That sounds rewarding beyond lifetimes. "Fullness" would take on a new expanse, that is for sure. And I can't help but imagine that it would help my art. Actually, I can't imagine how either study isn't going to inform my artistry, in some way or another.
The first class was great. It is split in halves, each with different professors — one, called the "seminar", where we started into Antigone (and will move into other works starting in three weeks); the other, called the "tutorial", where we will work on just Meno all term long.
Other basics: there were 23 adults in attendence, including myself, and I was on the younger side. I was struck that for more than half, this class was their first exposure to Plato (what has our educational culture come to?). But the conversations were lively; both professors used the right amount of time to start to sketch the background/contexts from which each of the two works arose. I didn't know, for example, that Meno was always the first dialogue given to new students at Plato's Academy upon their entrance. So that made me feel in pretty good company, being as this same strategy is obviously employed by the Basic Program.
I also didn't know that, with regard to Antigone and Greek tragedy in general, that Greek audiences knew the stories, knew the basic contour of how they were told/re-enacted, and rather than look for plot points (which they already knew thoroughly), they looked for variations, sometimes variations quite subtle, in the telling that they were about to witness. My immediate thought upon hearing that was "wow, that is exactly the way fans of the band Phish (which I was, thoroughly) would treat each and every live show, because the basic structures of the songs were well-known, and what we listened for were those magical variations, invented in the moment, at that concert, just for us. So there an off-the-wall connection, for you.
Lastly, I'll add that both generously took contributions from us anytime anyone had something to say or ask. Both tried to use our responses or questions as food for further conversation, further unpacking of the texts. Both teachers asked people to read aloud the entirety of what we were closely examining. In each case, here are the passages we read aloud and devoted over an hour to discussing.
From Antigone:
Chorus
Many are the wonders, none is more wonderful than what is man. That is it that crosses the sea with the south winds storming and the waves swelling, breaking around him in roaring surf. He it is again who wears away the Earth, oldest of gods, immortal, unwearied, as the ploughs wind across her from year to year when he works her with the breed that comes from horses.
The tribe of the lighthearted birds he snares and takes prisoner the races of savage beasts and the brood of the fish of the sea, with the close-spun web of nets. A cunning fellow is man. His contrivances make him master of beasts of the field and those that move in the mountains. So he brings the horse with the shaggy neck to bend underneath the yoke; and also the untamed mountain bull; and speech and windswift thought and the tempers that go with city living he has taught himself, and how to avoid the sharp frost, when lodging is old under the open sky and pelting strokes of the rain. He has a way against everything, and he faces nothing that is to come without contrivance. Only against death can he call on no means of escape; but escape from hopeless diseases he has found in the depths of his mind. With some sort of cunning, inventive beyond all expectations he reaches sometimes evil, and sometimes good.
If he honors the laws of earth, and the justice of the gods he has confirmed by oath, high is his city; no city has he with whom dwells dishonor prompted by recklessness. He who is so, may he never share my hearth! may he never think my thoughts!
From Meno:
MENO: Can you tell me, Socrates — is virtue something that can be taught? Or does it come to practice? Or is it neither teaching nor practice that gives it to a man but natural aptitude or something else?
SOCRATES: Well, Meno, in the old days the Thessalians had a great reputation among the Greeks for their wealth and their horsemanship. Now it seems they are philosophers as well — especially the men of Larissa, where your friend Aristippus comes from. It is Gorgias who has done it. He went to that city and captures the hearts of the foremost of the Aleuadae for his wisdom — among them your own admirer Aristippus — not to speak of other leading Thessalians. In particular he got you into the habit of answering any question you might be asked, with the confidence and dignity appropriate tto those who know the answers, just as he himself invites questions of every kind from anyone in the Greek world who wishes to ask, and never fails to answer them. But here at Athens, my dear Meno, it is just the reverse. There is a dearth of wisdom, and it looks as if it had migrated from our part of the country to yours. At any rate if you put your question to any of our people, they will all alike laugh and say, You must think I am singularly fortunate, to know whether virtue can be taught or how it is acquired. The fact is that far from knowing whether it can be taught, I have no idea what virtue itself is.
That is my own case. I share the poverty of my fellow countrymen in this respect, and confess to my shame that I have no knowledge about virtue at all. And how can I know a property of something when I don't even know what it is? Do you suppose that somebody entirely ignorant who Meno is could say whether he is handsome and rich and wellborn or the reverse? Is that possible, do you think?
MENO: No. But is this true about yourself, Socrates, that you don't even know what virtue is? Is this the report that we are to take home about you?
SOCRATES: Not only that, you may say also that, to the best of my belief, I have never yet met anyone who did know.
MENO: What! Didn't you meet Gorgias when he was here?
SOCRATES: Yes.
MENO: And you still didn't think he knew?
SOCRATES: I'm a forgetful sort of person, and I can't say just now what I thought at the time. Probably he did know, and I expect you know what he used to say about it. So remind me what it was, or tell me yourself if you will. You no doubt agree with him.
MENO: Yes, I do.
SOCRATES: Then let's leave him out of it, since after all he isn't here....
We discussed each for 90 minutes; and we could have gone another 90 minutes, easy. Really good, and I'm quite excited to be part of this program.
For the next 12 weeks, starting tonight, I'll meet with other adults at the downtown campus of the University of Chicago for the Autumn term, Year 1 class of the Basic Program for Liberal Education of Adults. I'm just thrilled, but trying to keep my expectations reasonably low (for don't high expectation kill, basically, everything?).
I feel as prepared as I intended to be. I finished both readings — Plato's Meno (for the first time) and Sophocles Antigone (for like the 9th). The program information provided by the school suggested coming to classes with questions in mind; I don't have any in particular right now, but I figure this being the first class of my first term, that is ok. For subsequent classes, after I have a feel of what to expect, I'll bring some questions.
Since a strong possibility exists that I'll be blogging much about ideas that pop from my study in the Basic Program, I'll end here. I do want to add that I completely enjoyed reading Meno for the first time. I read Antigone several times in college, being as I majored in English Literature. For the particular editions of each I'm reading (picked out, of course, by the program's faculty), see here, and scroll down.
UPDATE: I've mentioned before that a fundamental aspect of this program is the method of close-reading (along with discussion and expert facilitation). At the open house I attended, the director stressed that they felt that the program picked out those translations of classic texts that are, in their opinion, the best. Whether that is in fact a reasonable claim or not, do see how, even with a single paragraph of Meno, indeed the very last paragraph, different translations yield different meanings, when read closely and compared closely.
Compare for yourself. On the left is the translation by Benjamin Jowett, and used at Wikipedia; on the right by W.K.C Guthrie (the one my class uses):
Then, Meno, the conclusion is that virtue comes to the virtuous by the gift of God. But we shall never know the certain truth until, before asking how virtue is given, we enquire into the actual nature of virtue. I fear that I must go away, but do you, now that you are persuaded yourself, persuade our friend Anytus. And do not let him be so exasperated; if you can conciliate him, you will have done good service to the Athenian people.
On our present reasoning then, whoever has virtue gets it by divine dispensation. But we shall not understand the truth of the matter until, before asking how men get virtue, we try to discover what virtue is in and by itself. Now it is time for me to go, and my request to you in that you will allay the anger of your friend Anytus by convincing him that what you now believe is true. If you succeed, the Athenians may have cause to thank you.
In particular, "conclusion" vs. "present reasoning"; "god" vs. "divine dispensation"; and "know the certain truth" vs. "understand the truth of the matter". No small differences, if you ask me, if you believe that ideas, and the words that express them, have consequences.
This is very moving video where they conduct a joint-interview, and discuss learning from the protests and death threats against Rushie and The Satanic Verses, (which Ali took part it, and now deeply regrets).
Best quote, from Ali: "I was demonstrating for ignorance."
SEATTLE (AP) -- A map of the mouse brain down to details of individual cells has been completed, the first project of an institute funded by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul G. Allen, it was announced Tuesday.
The new Allen Brain Atlas is being made available online without cost to neuroscientists studying brain circuits and chemistry, a potential boon to cancer and other disease research because of similarities between the brains of mice and human beings, according to a statement issued by the Allen Institute of Brain Science.
"We want people to use this and make discoveries," Dr. Allan Jones, the institute's chief scientific officer, told The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
A formal announcement was planned in Washington, D.C., with Allen and Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash, and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
Because more than 90 percent of the same genes are found in mice and humans, the mouse brain map can be compared with genetic findings related to human neurological disorders.
Moreover, the mapping project has shown that 80 percent of the body's genes are switched on in the brain, compared with 60 percent to 70 percent in previous scientific estimates, Jones said.
We just witnessed the antics of Chavez and Ahmadinejad at the UN. Exactly 60 years ago, "Nasser visits Harlem, Khruschev pounds table, Castro delivers four-hour tirade...":
This piece is just a simple elaboration where I arpeggiate a 4-part Bach Chorale (#21) — I thought was reflective so I wanted to share it. "Morning practice" refers, rather, to the fact that realizing Bach's chorales on piano are part of my morning practice routine.
YORK ON CLINTON'S CLAIM TO HAVE LEFT A "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN"
Seems like, as with Clinton's claim that Richard Clarke's book actually supports Clinton's defense of his administration response to terrorism while in office (which, it doesn't), so, too, Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive strategy", which, he further claims, the Bush administration ignored, also seems wrong, according to a researched report by Byron York.
And you know what? It is Clarke, again, who disproves Clinton: according to Clarke, "There was never a plan...". Yikes.
If you add these two to another false claim from Clinton (that he never criticized the Bush administration, yet he did, not only in this interview, with the "1/7th" claim, but pretty notably right here), it is clear to me that Clinton's attempt at defense with Wallace isn't holding up too well.
I'll repeat what I've said before, to hopefully clarify what I'm interested in and what I'm not interested in, with this entire Clinton/Wallace thing. We can understand exactly why we should hold Clinton accountable without losing sight of the overall view that every administration since and including Reagan made errors bigtime on terrorism. Talking about what Bush Jr's administration (or Reagan's, or Bush Sr's) did or did not do on terrorism are all worthwhile subject; but attempts to do so on this topic are not a relevant argument, but rather a unhelpful deflection.
UPDATE: Another false claim by Clinton. He said:
"He [bin Laden] wasn't involved in that [Somalia], that's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohamed Aideed, a Muslim warlord ...."
Nothing has been more deleterious than the common error that poststructuralism is a product of 1960s leftism and therefore an agent of progressive political change. This misconception was made possible only because authentic American radicals of the sixties rarely if ever entered or completed graduate school in the humanities or made their way up the academic ladder. Poststructuralism was two generations older; it was a product of the school of Saussure, a system of linguistic theory predating World War II and subscribed to by French intellectuals who were heavily influenced by the pessimistic modernism of Samuel Beckett. The American sixties believed in social reform, in individual identity, in emotional intensity, and in nature; poststructuralism believes in none of these things. It asserts that there are no “facts”; that language constructs or mediates all reality, that political power is created and sustained through language, and that, conversely, an alteration in language will somehow produce political change. Poststructuralism is simply a new version of verbalism — the excessive preoccupation with words — that has repeatedly plagued the history of Western education, even in ancient Rome. The sixties cultural revolution, as energized by mass media, was grounded in the sensory—and it should have produced a massive reform of education in this era of cutting-edge science and technology by moving the humanities curriculum forcibly toward the arts. That leftist politics can be synthesized with traditional erudition and passionate respect for the arts is proved by Arnold Hauser’s Marxist study, The Social History of Art, a magnificent magnum opus in the tradition of German philology.
Powerful stuff. The reacion I have at this moment is whether Wilberism, too, is a form of verbalism. I'll have to think on that.
As I've been blogging about recently, Hannah and I are strongly considering using the "classical education" approach for homeschooling Twyla. The book The Well-Trained Mind is what we are using as general overview at this point. This approach makes broad use of the "trivium" developmental template, as well as makes plenty of space for parents to make their own choices and add other areas of study to the mix (such as music, movement/dance, and others).
Anyway, while we are comforted by the fact that the classical approach is time-tested (over 2000 years and counting), we still feel a bit on an island. If any of you have considered this approach, know someone who has, or have some kind of informed perspective on this, I would just love to hear from you. You can either comment on this entry, or send me an email at matthew at matthew dallman dot com. Though we are thinking this is the best overall way to go, we haven't 100% firmly decided as of yet, and I'd love to hear what others have experienced with this. This includes if you were taught via the trivium in a religious school.
I guess it is strange to quote a letter written to another blog, but since it was made public, why not, right? After all, this is the internet age. This one, written to The Corner, hits it on the head:
I'm glad you [Jonah Goldberg] handed out blame for not preventing 9/11 to a lot of people in your corner post, but there's something that I think really needs to be emphasized more in these discussions: America is a democracy. Politicians take their positions, by and large, because those positions get them votes. Terrorism was not treated as a huge threat before 9/11 because the American people, in general did not think of it as a threat.
Imagine if someone had tried to run for president in 1992, or 1996, or 2000, on a platform that preventing terrorist attacks against the US should be our number one priority, and promised to devote immense resources to that goal, maybe including serious military engagement in the Middle East. He wouldn't have had a chance.
It's a funny thing about democracies, and one that goes back at least to Athens: the whole point of the system is that decisions are made by the people, and we're all very proud to take part in government; and then when a decision seems to have been wrong, there has to be a huge frantic hunt for the politician who tricked or coerced us into it.
Which is why I've chosen to approach the Clinton role as "holding him accountable", while still pointing out that I voted for him and don't regret it. We shouldn't fear trying for accountability, yet we should refrain from mudslinging of any kind. It bears note that, between Wallace and Clinton, the only kind of mud slung was by the latter, when he oddly called Wallace's question a "conservative hit job" as well as straight-up insulted him by impugning his journalistic integrity.
Some people are calling what Clinton did as another example of his indisputed title as America's greatest politician (which, it should be noted, is a title quite distinct from "statesman" or "leader"). I'm am not saying Clinton planned this hyperbolic event in order to, say, keep himself in the limelight of the liberal-left blogosphere (those he did just convene a meeting with several prominent such bloggers). That, like conspiracy theories, strikes me simply as doling out undue credit. I rather usually interpret things such as this as matters of human frailty — here, Clinton meaning to do well (as I'm sure he meant as president) ended up acting boorishly, because, bottom line, humans just do that sorta thing, all the time, everyday.
...the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance [to kill bin Laden] that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try.
He says there is plenty of blame to go around, and that is 100% right. But that doesn't mean we don't hold to accountablity where we must.
The former president, whom I voted for, responded this weekend to charges that he didn't do enough to fight terrorism while president by imploring to read the book by Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror: such as "All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book," and other similar statements. (Here is the full transcript). Doing just that, reporter Byron York has, I think, a very good piece that, even using Clarke's book as evidence, reasonably argues Clinton really dropped the ball on terrorism in the 90s. A kwote:
But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.
I think the challenge for liberals and other supporters of Clinton is to be able to hold multiple perspectives on him; perspectives such as "he did good things as president" (to which I'd agree, depending on what we are talking about) simultaneous to "he did not do even close to the best job he could have of responding to growing terrorist threats against the USA" (which I think is essentially a sound conclusion, and one held by the 9/11 Commission).
I will say one other thing: in the transcript (an interview on the Fox News network by host Chris Wallace), Clinton refers to this question by Wallace ("why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them [bin Laden, et al] out of business?" by calling this a "conservative hit job". I find that to be utterly strange. Certainly it is a pointed question, certainly it enters controversial waters, and (apparently, if you believe Clinton) it goes against an agreement pre-arrangement as a condition to his appearing. Even if you stipulate the Wallace broke an agreement, "conservative hit job"? Implicitly as another example of the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" that he bemoaned while in office [correction: his wife]. I don't know — sounds like pure paranoia to me. I will say that I enjoy the entire exchange between Wallace and Clinton (even on the transcript alone, but better, of course, on television). Politics is both the art of what is possible, and, as exhibited here, good ole theatre.
UPDATE: Up until 3 am this morning, replacing the toilet. Hannah helped and then went to bed around 1:30 am, and finished up the last stuff. We have an 80-yr-old house, and the plumbing set-up is no longer contemporary. Which meant lots of elbow grease required, but I got the job done. But silly me, I forgot to buy a toilet seat at the store; so, not quite there yet...
This has struck both Hannah and me as the sturdiest guide to homeschooling we have found. It uses and elaborates on the 2000-yr-old developmental method known as The Trivium. We think of it as as a template, adaptable to the modern age, our own sensibilities and preferences, without losing its rigorous core. For example, we already know that exposure to the arts (especially visual and musical) are something we'll amp up to some extent in our homeschooling of Twyla and other children. The Well-Trained Mind isn't against either, and there is plenty in the approach outlining education in both, but does tend to emphasize training of reading and writing. Which is of course admirable, and necessary.
One thing discussed in the opening chapters that caught both of us was the method for teaching classic but seemingly imposing books like The Iliad. The authors suggest a three-part approach over many years. The first part, which we can take up now, is to find a children's version of the book, with the bare story and primarily pictures, and read this aloud with the child, and allowing him or her plenty of time to take in the visuals. Then, four years later, find a middle-grade adaptation, and have the child read that (and of course, discuss it). Finally, after four more years, the child can read the full version of The Iliad, knowing the story through and through, and now with nothing to be scared of. That seems fantastically right on, and a generalizable method to expose children to great works of the Canon from the very beginning years. It also seems to honor the human tradition through the ages that instills myths and stories in the child's imagination from the very beginning of their lives.
The Well-Trained Mind inspires me, to put it directly. It suggests that homeschooling parents need not be overly proficient in any subject or skill in order to homeschool successfully. The most important trait is dedication. (isn't that so often the case?) With homeschooling via the classical approach, learning isn't confined to the child, but includes the parents, because it is not only about new subjects or new things all the time, but just as often, digging deeper into places you were before, and now rediscover with more maturity.
Will we teach Latin, as the approach suggests? I don't know right now (it is a bridge for the future), but I know that if we do, then it will fun for me to learn it (and, I'm sure, clarifying with regard to the construction of various languages, as well as any Latin-based works of the Canon). I know enough about parenting to know this: a lot of good parenting is merely being enthusiastic, in the goal of inviting the child to be enthusiastic as well. Because genuine enthusiasm is in fact infectious. And my hunch is that is plays an enormous role in instilling a love of learning in your children, a love that lasts a lifetime, and a rigorous habit of imaginative play that is carried into whatever vocation, job, or life pursuit the child/adult decides to seek.
The site is fighting its ban in China. Its founder, Jimmy Wales, has challenged Google and Yahoo to do the same to justify their decision to cooperate with China's demands for censorship The story is here, and here's the Kosmic Kwote:
Wales will meet senior Chinese officials in an attempt to persuade them to allow the website's 1.3 million articles to appear there uncensored.
'One of the points that I'm trying to push is that if there's a small town in China that has a wonderful local tradition, that won't make its way into Wikipedia because the people of China are not allowed to share their knowledge with the world. I think that's an ironic side-effect and something the people in the censorship department need to have a much bigger awareness of: you're not just preventing information about Falun Gong or whatever you're upset about getting into China, you're preventing the Chinese people speaking to the world.'
Following in the line of McLuhan, he offered this prescient words:
Through the computer, the heralds say, we will make education better, religion better, politics better, our minds better -- best of all, ourselves better. This is, of course, nonsense, and only the young or the ignorant or the foolish could believe it. I said a moment ago that computers are not to blame for this. And that is true, at least in the sense that we do not blame an elephant for its huge appetite or a stone for being hard or a cloud for hiding the sun. That is their nature, and we expect nothing different from them. But the computer has a nature, as well. True, it is only a machine but a machine designed to manipulate and generate information. That is what computers do, and therefore they have an agenda and an unmistakable message.
The message is that through more and more information, more conveniently packaged, more swiftly delivered, we will find solutions to our problems. And so all the brilliant young men and women, believing this, create ingenious things for the computer to do, hoping that in this way, we will become wiser and more decent and more noble. And who can blame them? By becoming masters of this wondrous technology, they will acquire prestige and power and some will even become famous. In a world populated by people who believe that through more and more information, paradise is attainable, the computer scientist is king. But I maintain that all of this is a monumental and dangerous waste of human talent and energy. Imagine what might be accomplished if this talent and energy were turned to philosophy, to theology, to the arts, to imaginative literature or to education? Who knows what we could learn from such people -- perhaps why there are wars, and hunger, and homelessness and mental illness and anger.
Read the whole speech, called "Informing Ourselves to Death".
This is a fantastic essay on education, by Dorothy Sayers. Written in the mid-20th century, it has become an anchor for the ongoing revival/renewal of Classical Education, via the Trivium.
That is the title of my newest essay, posted at POLYSEMY Online as a web-exclusive online column. This piece is two things. On one hand, it is my long-promised (and long-delayed) response to the back and forth that CJ Smith and I had, a couple weeks ago. On the other, it is my longest and (I hope) most coherant statement to date regarding the integral tradition, and how it is properly regarded as distinct from anything "Wilberian".
Also note that published along with mine is Dan Allison's newest column, called Animating Change. It contains his provocative reflections upon recent viewings of Tim Burton films The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride.
Check 'em both out. Because if you want to fully see, you got to read POLYSEMY. (sorry, bad attempt at rhyme...)
These reflections lead Benedict to a much graver indictment of Islam: "For Muslim teaching," he says, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Citing the 11th century polymath Ibn Hazm, Benedict adds that in Islam, "God is not bound even by his own word."
Let's play that again, since the rest of the media failed to notice: Pope Benedict suggests that the God of Mohammad is, or may seem to humans to be, "not even bound to truth and goodness." Who knows whether that really reflects a consensus view down the ages among Muslim theologians — Benedict makes his case about Islam by citing one scholar who cites another scholar who cites another. The more interesting question is why Benedict goes out of his way to use Islam as an example, since he also warns against similar tendencies toward insisting on God's radical "otherness" within the Catholic tradition itself. So why can't he simply illustrate the controversies of faith without going outside the boundaries of his own?
In fact, Benedict saves his sharpest barbs for non-Muslim targets: Protestantism, which seeks a "primordial" form of faith; liberal theology, which reduces Jesus to "the father of a humanitarian moral message"; scientific rationalism, the ethics of which are "simply inadequate" to answer the "specifically human questions about our origin and destiny"; and what might be called Catholic pluralism, a culturally adaptive notion of the faith that Benedict denounces as "false" and "coarse."
These aren't mere provocations. There is an overarching philosophical architecture to Benedict's critique, expressed in the notion of the "de-Hellenization of Christianity." Christianity, in his view, is shaped and defined by the great dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem, reason and revelation. When the Apostle John says "In the beginning was the Word," the "word," literally, is logos —which is reason, or argument. This, according to Benedict, expresses "the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry."
That rapprochement — a triumph of dialogue — lies at the heart of Benedict's theology: Strip faith from reason (as scientific rationalism does), or reason from faith (as Protestant literalism does), and "it is man himself who ends up being reduced."
I particularly like the last paragraph. I'll try to get my hands on the full piece and give it a good look. If so, I'll report back.
An interesting article of that name by Susan Wise Bauer. She outlines the approach to education that is known as the trivium:
A classical education, then, has two important aspects. It is language-focused. And it follows a specific three-part pattern: the mind must be first supplied with facts and images, then given the logical tools for organization of facts, and finally equipped to express conclusions.
But that isn't all. To the classical mind, all knowledge is interrelated. Astronomy (for example) isn't studied in isolation; it's learned along with the history of scientific discovery, which leads into the church's relationship to science and from there to the intricacies of medieval church history. The reading of the Odyssey leads the student into the consideration of Greek history, the nature of heroism, the development of the epic, and man's understanding of the divine.
This is easier said than done. The world is full of knowledge, and finding the links between fields of study can be a mind-twisting task. A classical education meets this challenge by taking history as its organizing outline — beginning with the ancients and progressing forward to the moderns in history, science, literature, art and music.
It appears that trivium-based classical education acknowledges development in the child ("grammer", "logic", and "rhetoric" form a sequence that unfolds over many years of education) and has both its secular and Christian traditions. Of course, any authentic "great books" program (which in limited but useful ways appears to have been folded into classical approaches) is going to read The Bible, because it is part of the conversation across the ages by so many great thinkers and artists. When it comes down to it, the question is to what extent one considers The Bible to be literal history, and what extent one considers it profound poetry of the human condition. I'm firmly with the latter. The story of the West is a story that involves long and complicated battles between Christian and Pagan traditions, still ongoing; it seems to me one won't get the best story unless one honors both in the course of education. The only way to do so is to learn to regard The Bible as, yes, important, and yes, divine, and, yes, poetry that humans and culture created.
We've been teaching her American Sign Language for babies since her 6th month, or so (we took a one-day workshop at Hannah's yoga studio). She's nearly 14 months now, and has a good bag of signs she knows how to use. Obviously hello and goodbye. Also "I want milk" and "more" (as in, more food). It is especially fantastic when she's sitting in her high chair when we are at a meal, and she makes the sign for "more". Unofficially, we know when she wants to be picked up (she has her own DIY sign for that one — arms in the air!). She's also starting to make the official sign for "toilet", as in, "I just went to it" in my diaper. Both Hannah and I agree that it is marvelous that we three communicate before she is able to vocalize words. It helps reduce unneeded frustration on all of our parts, knowing what it is that she wants. We just bought a book that has more signs for us to learn. Including the sign for "music", and let me tell you, if she makes that one papa might not have much of him solid left, because it all would have sweetly melted away. So much already has.
Mickey Kaus, on A. Sullivan (follow for his hyperlinks):
YouTube: Andrew Sullivan has decided to give out a Nancy Grace Award. Criteria (suggested by Sullivan's readers) include "a nauseating level of absolutist self-righteousness," an "unflappable self-assurance that [the nominee's] outrage represents the true moral high ground on any issue" despite a propensity to "flip flop"--and a habit of "excessive personal attacks." [Emphasis added]... You mean like righteously bullying anyone who fails to support a war in Iraq, then turning around and righteously attacking the people who are prosecuting it? ... Can you think of any nominees? I'm stumped.
I also just read a recent column by Sullivan. Stated broadly, his argument is that American conservatism (that of William F Buckley and his legacy) has been corrupted by President George Bush and the policies of his administration. In order to demonstrate that conclusion, I think Sullivan relies on this paragraph:
American conservatism has gone from being a political philosophy rooted in scepticism of power, empirical judgment and limited government into an ideology based in born-again religious faith, immune to empirical reality and dedicated to the relentless expansion of presidential clout. It sanctions wiretapping without court warrants, indefinite detention without trial and the use of torture.
Or in other words, the base of American conservativism was scepticism of power, empirical judgment and limited government, but now its base is born-again faith, non-empiricism, expansion of presidential clout (which sanctions what he lists). But there is a key base stolen here, which undermines his point. It is the conflation of American conservatism with the Republican Party. Without that distinction, Sullivan can make his point easier. But with that distinction, there is no change as he outlines it, but rather a political party acting in a certain way or ways that he (rightly or wrongly) disagrees with. Or in other words, he has to erase the difference between the two in order to be truthful.
American conservativism and the Republican Party are in no way synonymous. One is a bunch of think-tank intellectuals who write books, articles, and columns of varying cultural influence; one is a group of politicians who run for office by trying to win people's votes any way they can. All the time, conservative intellectuals are up in arms about what Republican politicians are doing. (The same goes for liberal/progressive intellectuals and Democrat politicians). Politicians are a notoriously mercenary bunch, on both sides of the aisle (or any side in governments with more than two dominant parties). Politics is the art of what is possible in the public sphere; intellectual thought is the result of scholarship and research. Even in the best of situations, political reality requires the bastardization of whatever are its intellectual underpinnings. Politics is, at root, tribal.
My point is that in order for Sullivan's point to work, the intellectuals and the politicians have to be nearly identical if not the same. Yet they are manifestly not. Notice (if you read the full column) who Sullivan first cites as support for his case: some anonymous Southern voter mainly, with four politicians and a former general/cabinet member only as peripheral support. Sorry, that is not enough, not by a long shot.
Rather what we have is several politicians (in Congress) publically disagreeing with another politician (in the Oval Office). This is the "revolt" upon which Sullivan cleverly but (as I am demonstrating) falsely stands in order to make what is surely intended to be the climactic point of his column, his quoting of the esteemed conservative Jeffrey Hart, who is highly critical of Bush. In the article Sullivan quotes from, Hart writes, "Today, the standard-bearer of “conservatism” in the United States is George W. Bush," and thus he is making the same basic error of Sullivan, that of conflating a political party with a group of intellectuals (i.e., not running at all for office). This is an error akin to thinking that The Nation or the Center for American Progress are equivalent to the Democrat Party. That is silliness.
Even Sullivan's quoting of Buckley as evidence works against him: according to Buckley, Bush suffers from "the absence of effective conservative ideology". Or in other words, Bush isn't a conservative, but rather a politician. Who, no one needs reminding, sometimes borrows ideas or proposals from American conservatives, but just as often (if not more often) does not. Many on the right (such as Jonah Goldberg) have compared Bush's program for "compassionate conservatism" to typical left/progressive policy positions. It is a case people have and are making. After all, if you look for American conservatives who advocate the kind of expansion of government that has occurred, you will look long and hard (and, at best, only find one sub-species of conservativism, known as the "National Greatness" conservatives, such as NYTimes columnist David Brooks, yet even here there is far from 100% agreement with Bush's administration on key issues).
What Sullivan and Hart are criticizing is a politician, namely the President of the United States, elected twice by the people and who has never been an intellectual of any kind. Of course he (and they) are fair game, always. The criticisms they make are perfectly reasonable (though of course can be argued against) as long as we understand their real targets, which are Republican politicians, and not the one advertised, namely American conservatism. Left-liberals are often accused of fundamental ignorance about the actual nature of American conservativism. You'd at least understand such ignorance from them. My hunch is that finding truth from any source is a talent seen less in liberal circles than conservative ones (but, in truth, paltry in both). But this basic error from two people who call themselves actual conservatives and who have plenty of experience in its intellectual circles and debates, as both Sullivan and Hart do? It is strange, to say the least.
Bill Harryman, commenting on my write-up of the Basic Program open house from last week:
Every university ought to offer a program like this -- I'd be there in an instant.
I agree, this would be a great start. Through advocacy of it, I believe it can continue to spread throughout the country. I think half of the battle is imparting just how common sense this is. The other half is fighting those who have personal and financial stake in maintaining the theory-driven status quo.
To be clear on my end, I think the Basic Program (which is the heart of the famous Great Books initiative, itself never actually adopted as official UChicago curriculm) should be the basic template for Humanities education in all cases, and at all levels of schooling. Nothing should ever substitute for close reading of texts on their own terms (or, for non-verbal works, beit paintings, music, scultptures, dances, etc., "close-examination"). Nothing should ever substitute for having the pleasure of a very motivated and enthusiastic teacher who draws new ideas and questions out of you, that you never thought of but somehow remember. Nothing should ever substitute from having your own opinions, biases, assumptions, and perspectives sounding consonant or dissonant with those of others, or realizing over time the underlying harmony. Such is the music evoked in a living tradition. (And why I believe that there is a non-Wilberian integral tradition, and it is the Humanities properly taught and experienced. But more on that in an article for POLYSEMY Online, tomorrow).
When you closely examine great works on their own terms, your perception is rearranged and clarified. You get closer to the mind and subjective world of the creator or creators, you learn how to pay attention, slow down, and get beyond preconceptions. This is how art is spiritual (but not moral). And you find that the works benefit from repeated readings over the course of your life, just as you reap the subtlest but greatest rewards from time invested in a friendship or relationship over years and even decades. There is scientific basis for this: Abigail Housen's work is aesthetic response characterizes the deepest capacity as just that: being able to treat artworks like friends, over many years and countless encounters.
The Basic Program template, based on group discussions of closely-read works faciliated using the Socratic method, is not theory. It is not a map. It is barely even a model and only marginally an approach. The furthest thing from philosophy. It is just reading and discussing. Yet through commited participants, it allows the greatest cultural achievements (i.e., the Humanities) to expand consciousness, and break down barriers of time and space. There is a timeless, flowing conversation going on between our greatest thinkers and artists, over the ages, over the epochs. The Basic Program (itself as well as applied to the rest of the arts) reserves a seat next to this vast, mighty river, for you to swim in whenever you are ready.
REACTION TO LAST NIGHT'S "BASIC PROGRAM" OPEN HOUSE
It was fantastic. We did a mock class with of the staff teachers, and then the head of the program explained the history, intentions, and logistics of the program. As I walked back to my car, I crossed the Michigan Ave bridge over the east branch of the Chicago river. The lights from the cars and the surrounding skyscrapers glimmered brighter, deeper. The waves on the river below me were more palpable, vibrant. The bridge I walked on a more remarkable feat of engineering. I know this is cornball and no, there was no string section anywhere (internal or external), but it is what I felt, and how nice was that. Mind you, I was an English and Creative Writing major in college, so there were feelings of "oh I remember how much fun this is" all over the place for me. And, today, when I bought the course books from the UChicago bookstore — oh, how much fun it is to buy beautiful, clean, thick books in preparation for class readings; it had been a while on that.
A couple things struck me.
1) In the mock class, the teacher (who'd been in the program for 15 years) asked "what is history?" He then wrote down various ideas we offered (we, being the 25 or so adults there, ages maybe 32 to 60). Things like "author bias" (and about eight different ways of saying that), "human events", "1st and 2nd person accounts", "chronicle", "relevance", "remembrance", and more. Then we looked the first sentence from Herodotus' classic History, which is book held to be the first of its kind:
This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, nor that great and glorious deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, lose their fame, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other.
Everything that was listed on the board was already in the text, including the first words, which revealed the author was aware of his own bias. So much for French theory! (Folks: Most.Theory.Is.Naive.And.Stillborn, especially when put between you and text.)
45 minutes later, the mock class ended because it was time for the program head to speak. Else, we would have kept on talking, about just this sentence, and its implications. This is discussion-based stuff, the simple but infinitely rewarding method of "close reading", where the inner logic and and internal properties of the text, as it is on the page, reveals itself and unfolds through close examination and discussion. You empty your cup. The teacher, crucial in the ability to be subtle, not interfering, but near invisibly guiding, helping light the fire in the students, helped quite a bit by calling upon his knowledge of original Greek definitions of certain words. But it is really just this: a group of students all with the same text, with an experienced teacher. Reading. Discussing. Focusing on what is on the page. Allowing connections to form, from what already happened in the work, as well as those from the great conversation that exists across time between great thinkers. And I really loved that this is a class of adults. We all bring our life lived, and living, to bear, with a kind of maturity. The patriarch of this "Great Books" approach, said:
The great books do not yield up their secrets to the immature...Most of the important things that human beings ought to understand cannot be comprehended in youth...To read great books, if we read them at all, in childhood and youth and never read them again is never to understand them.
Perfect.
2) My fears of theory (of Foucault, Derrida, or anyone) interfering were quelled when the program head, responding to this kind of question from one of the students, said that bringing some writer's or thinker's critique/theory into class is a no-no. It goes against the grain of close reading, allowing the works themselves to shine. It is also unfair to the rest of the students, who can't participate in any kind of discussion about this theory or critique unless they've read it. She did say that if someone wants to reframe the theory/idea/critique in their own words, that sort of thing is fair game, but you better be prepared to defend its validity as arising from the text. This overall approach/attitude to theory seems exactly right. Theory is useless unless it reconciles with the living tradition embodied as the discussion itself. Criticism and theory cannot be understood, anyway, by the reader unless he/she has some kind of good grasp on the text on its own terms. The experience of the teachers, as well as my own back at school, agrees that imported theory kills discussion and dialogue. The class foster a DIY attitude, only with the Classics. Were it that the rest of intellectuals took this view, we'd be all much better off. Anyway, fears of French theory erased. Phew!
3) The program head, a classy woman named Clare Pearson, revealed that Robert Maynard Hutchins, the patriarch I mentioned above, felt an obligation to create this "Great Books" approach because under his watch as university president, the University of Chicago first developed the atomic bomb. The Basic Program, he felt, was the other side of that coin. Perfect, huh? One catastrophically destroys life; the other radically expands consciousness. After all, he did feel that "The purpose of the university is nothing less than to procure a moral, intellectual, and spiritual revolution throughout the world."
if we got enough artists to do something like this, reconnecting with the conversation great thinkers and artists have had with each other across the ages (i.e., reconnecting with the Canon on its own terms), we would create a revolution that reattachs artistry to its own timeless roots. That, in part, fuels everything I do publically, including POLYSEMY as well as the artist school I want to start at some point in the future.
Today I signed up for the Year 1 Autumn course. We are reading Antigone, by Sophocles (this edition), Plato's Apology, Crito, and Meno (this edition), and Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky (this edition). Over 11 weeks. Meno is given quarter-long treatment, the other three about 3-4 weeks each. No papers, no assignments except to read and come to class to discuss intelligently, and listen attentively.
This class is completely non credit (though completion of 2 and 4 years bears a certificate, plus you get alumni status from the U of Chicago, which brings certain perks). This means that the only reason people take the courses are to for the inate benefit of digging into the great works with others. The reading list, over the program's four years, hasn't changed much, we were told, in its 60 years of existence. There is a reason for the text selections from one quarter to the next. (I'll be curious to experience this first hand). The Great Books approach was ma
