Hi Karl
I think we could talk about this until the cows come home. And we could
argue the details like those who worried about how many angels fit on the
head of a pin. Or we could just do it. There are many free platforms, from
traditional bricks to clicks sites to, for the more adventurous digital
immigrants, virtual worlds full of avatars and massive ways to organize a
course. What is needed is for whoever is interested to put up the course(s)
and for FOW to just put up a website which listed the courses as being
available for interested persons with no guarantee. Those offering the
courses donīt even have to use the same platform or even the same method of
course delivery
In fact, virtual world platforms might be just what is needed since they
invoke all the issues that are being discussed by FOW. And one could
experience creating a world with any type of philo base. I would suggest
that a reading of Ed Castranovaīs Synthetic Worlds might provide an
inspiration.
Or we could just continue the way this conversation is going and worry
whether a Sokal Clone will appear and call the question.
thoughts?
tom
tom abeles
>From: Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
> <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Conference, Journal & Virtual University
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:44:11 +0100
>
>Nick,
>
> I agree that the virtual university would be a very ambitious project.
>What I had in mind was a "seed project" that would gain its own momentum
>through the participation of free-association of people who share concerns
>about the direction of education and wish to offer alternatives. What I had
>in mind was the setting up of an internet based site as the basis of a
>growing network. It is a way of attracting people to what will hopefully
>become a growing movement.
>
> I would suggest that any member of FOW should be able to run a course on
>the VU.
> Apart from censoring racist, sexist, offensive, or extremely stupid
>courses (such as How To Make A Good Photocopy Picture of Your Arse), I do
>not think that there should be any restrictions. I think that the broader
>the range of courses the better it would be. Also by offering seemingly
>peripheral courses, such as my courses on the History and Philsophy of
>Anarchism and Theory and Practice of Permaculture, for example, this will
>gain some internet search hits by people looking for internet material on
>anarchism or permaculture, which will then lead them to the FOW site.
> Other peoples' courses would do likewise. While I think that all
>knowledge potentially relates to wisdom, a practical benefit of peripheral
>courses is that they will attract people to the VU and the FOW, and, once
>they have found the VU then they may well take an interest in the core
>ideas and courses.
>
> Personally, I would be quite happy to rely on your judgement regarding
>censorship, but if you were unhappy with taking on that responsibility then
>I think that it would be relatively straightforward for the members of FOW
>to democratically set up a simple and revisable set of rules about what we
>consider to be unacceptable.
>
> But I have to say that I do not like the idea of requiring academic
>qualifications. Not at all! I have academic qualifications and work
>experience (including distance learning courses and adult education) but I
>think that there are many people wiser than me who do not.
>
> I also know some people who have plenty of academic qualifications, but,
>are as daft as a brush but not as useful, as my Grandfather would put it.
>
> Furthermore, it raises the question of what qualifications would
>demonstrate sufficient wisdom to run a course on the VU? Who would decide
>this? What qualifications would this person need to provide in order to
>demonstrate that they were qualified to make that decision? To whom would
>they submit to for examination? And so on....
>
> I also think that it somewhat contradicts the spirit of the idea of a
>revolution in education if we conform to the current standards of
>university academia from the onset. The way that we become a shining
>example of what education should be is by basing ourselves on
>free-association and by offering alternatives. A federation rather than a
>society that creates a space for diversity and plurality of vision, rather
>than trying to promote any unified ideology, policy, or agenda.
>
> Given that no one will be paid for running a course, the VU would not
>provide qualifications, and we will not charge for courses, then there is
>no legal obligation for us to standardise or regulate who qualifies as
>course providers.
>
> While I take on board your point about intellectual standards, I seems
>to me that such standards for wisdom-enquiry should be emergent from the
>enquiry, rather than a precondition for it. I don't think that we should
>pre-empt what they are, but a rigorous discussion of them should be the
>basis of one of the core courses of the VU. Perhaps you could provide this
>course. I have no idea whatsoever what these standards are or what they so
>be, so I would be one of the first to sign up for your course.
>
> So unless we can find a group of sages and philosopher-kings who are
>willing to form our selection committe, in my view, membership of the FOW
>should be the only prerequisite for offering courses. If the course is
>rubbish then people will lose interest in it. It will die a death all of
>its own accord. Of course, people could complain about the quality of
>courses, but they should direct these to the course provider, unless their
>complaint is about offensive material, in which case either you or the FOW
>membership could decide to remove that material or the whole course.
>
> Finally, I agree that a discussion about what the ideal university
>should be would be very helpful. Perhaps that could be our conference
>theme. It will almost certainly be one of them.
>
> Karl.
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
|
