Of course, Harvey, globalization and the 'clash of cultures' is the
major contextual issue for this question of the university related to
society. These are contentious subjects, with many minds set according
to conventional positions. I hope we can avert familiar rhetoric and
political spin, if we venture where angels fear to tread.
Paul
On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Harvey Sarles wrote:
> About the "crisis" in the University. It is more useful (of course I
> wrote one - which I've shared with Nick, I think) to develop a
> "Vision: The Idea of a University in the Present Age, than only to
> moan - which I do a lot. In this moment of extraordinary change - we
> have to go back to the paradox of change-permanence, to explore such
> questions anew, especially with the ideas of all the worlds'
> traditions coming together. That is, I think wisdom involves the
> attempt to stand aside, above, but also to try to shape a desirable
> future.
> Harvey
> On Oct 11, 2005, at 9:45 AM, Paul Malo wrote:
>
>> Yes, Harvey. It is more Socratic--about asking questions rather than
>> providing answers. It's a quest.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Harvey Sarles wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It will take some time, thought, discussion to come even indirectly
>>> to a definition or a mission statement about wisdom. It is more a
>>> pursuit, rather than some knowing, a moving, attempts at (self-)
>>> transcendence. I think we should keep the mission statement brief,
>>> somewhat tentative, and begin to think about what wisdom is, and
>>> what it may mean.
>>> Harvey
>>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2005, at 4:17 AM, Nicholas Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Tommye,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for what you say about the "mission statement". "wisdom
>>>> is the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself
>>>> and others", is intended to convey the idea that wisdom is not the
>>>> same thing as the capacity for successful extreme selfishness, and
>>>> not the idea that wisdom involves deciding for others what is of
>>>> value. I must admit that it never occurred to me that it could be
>>>> misinterpreted in the way you suggest. How could it be
>>>> reformulated? "wisdom is the capacity to realize what is of value
>>>> in life, for oneself but not exclusively for oneself"? "wisdom is
>>>> the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and
>>>> others (without deciding for others)"? Both these are clumsy. Do
>>>> you have any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> I am inclined to think that the necessary brevity of any initial
>>>> "mission statement" as you call it will make some misunderstandings
>>>> more than likely. Our hope should be that it entices the
>>>> potentially interested reader to click on further pages of our web
>>>> site, where we spell out what we are about in more detail and, we
>>>> hope, clear up any initial misunderstandings.
>>>>
>>>> A general point. As it takes some weeks to get a new web site
>>>> into Google, perhaps we should launch the initial page of our
>>>> website - if we can agree on that - before we have finalized the
>>>> other pages. We don't have to wait until everything has been
>>>> agreed.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>> www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: Tommye Rodrigues
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:58 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: JISCmail FriendsofWisdom Emailing Group
>>>>>
>>>>> "...for oneself and others...." Nick: Your mission statement is
>>>>> beautifully worded and. more important, it captures the goal
>>>>> perfectly. My only concern is with the phrase "...for oneself and
>>>>> others...." and I think it is just a matter of semantics. As is it
>>>>> could be interpreted to mean we are deciding for others what is
>>>>> important, meaningful, etc. Could we re-word this phrase? Thanks,
>>>>> TR
|
