3 ms·

I might have to read the book. I would have appreciated a clearer definition of radical. My opinions have already been sculpted to exclude radicals from serious

I might have to read the book. I would have appreciated a clearer definition of radical. My opinions have already been sculpted to exclude radicals from serious engineering, medical, legal disciplines. But I think I appreciate the arguments made. I wonder if it's always mutually exclusive. Can you be a traditionalist when it suits your goals, or the task at hand, and a little more of a wild/creative "radical" at other times? Learn the commonly accepted methods/needs/approaches but keep a part of my mind as of yet unwritten? My own education (currently underway) is this constant dance between practical engineering problems and highly theoretical physics or mathematical constructs. At a high level, the question is really: how do we train someone's body and mind without crushing their soul? The idea that "society only needs a few creatives" is deeply disappointing and misguided. Society needs discipline, society needs creativity, an individual needs discipline, an individual needs creativity.

calibraxis 13y ago
I've read the book. While he doesn't define radical, it's clear the author means two things: * desires fundamental change in society's institutions * desires participatory, bottom-up institutions; rather than elitist ones. (This condition excludes right-wing radicals.) The idea is that professions don't exist in a vacuum; they fulfill goals in society's context. In particular, professionals are different from other workers in that ideology is important. So, the system doesn't particularly care what restaurant dishwashers think, as they have little workplace freedom; but teachers and lawyers have much more latitude in their jobs. For instance, we don't have economics teachers helping students design their own economics systems, since econ is a crucial part of status quo morality. Instead, they have to teach a (not too critical view of a) narrow subset of them: capitalist ideologies for the most part, and the more rebellious are channeled into top-down forms of marxism. Chomsky, mentioned in the book's preface (might've been the first chapter), discusses further constraints of educational system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw

calibraxis 13y ago

I've read the book. While he doesn't define radical, it's clear the author means two things: * desires fundamental change in society's institutions * desires participatory, bottom-up institutions; rather than elitist ones. (This condition excludes right-wing radicals.) The idea is that professions don't exist in a vacuum; they fulfill goals in society's context. In particular, professionals are different from other workers in that ideology is important. So, the system doesn't particularly care what restaurant dishwashers think, as they have little workplace freedom; but teachers and lawyers have much more latitude in their jobs. For instance, we don't have economics teachers helping students design their own economics systems, since econ is a crucial part of status quo morality. Instead, they have to teach a (not too critical view of a) narrow subset of them: capitalist ideologies for the most part, and the more rebellious are channeled into top-down forms of marxism. Chomsky, mentioned in the book's preface (might've been the first chapter), discusses further constraints of educational system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw