Let me reflect on a number of points which relate to this thread:

1) Universities are in the "business" of certification. That is their 
mission regardless of the content of the classes and research. 
Undergraduates, employers, parents and society in general want the students 
to obtain a certificate.

The university can not certify future knowledge because it doesn't exist. 
There are post secondary institutions that have a social mission, however 
defined. And the idea of service learning is gaining credibility along side 
the standard curriculum. Thus one can find a spectrum from the end advocated 
by Ian, Alan, Nick and others and one can find the more academic. One picks 
where they will read for their degree and what they will pay to obtain this.

The idea of Kant, Newman and others of a collegial community of seekers and 
scholars separate from the idea of certification comes closest in the 
Continental tradition and in some institutions in Latin America, for 
example.

what is gaining evermore credence is the US certification model which is 
being adopted globally, including within the English system. This, in many 
ways, runs counter to what FOW folk, here are talking about. But, until the 
issue of certification is dealt with, change will be hard.

2) University faculty are like their non-academic neighbors in that they 
want a house, some amenities and food. They must participate in the economic 
system. That is why the academic robe has pockets and why scholars want 
positions at universities where they are paid to enjoy their past time of 
scholarly thought and research. That paycheck comes from many sources such 
as tuition, government appropriations and philanthropy. That source also 
pays for the campus and its upkeep, including research facilities.But, very 
little of that money comes over the transom or slipped under the doors 
anonymously and with no strings attached. Academics respond to that 
paycheck. Yes, they have some internal autonomy but within confines. its 
like the animals in the zoo, free but bound.  Few academics will risk their 
sinecure to go over the wall so to speak.

3) We are now in the age of the internet. total curricula of universities 
are being posted on the internet. persons seeking wisdom or how to repair a 
flat tire can google a solution. Wisdom or any other knowledge is going open 
source. small institutions can swap courses and instructors virtually 
whether the faculty are in the US, Somalia or China. Thus institutions are 
becoming codependent and certification functions are becoming easier and at 
lower cost. The walls of the Ivory Tower have been breached and knowledge 
flows in both directions.

Thus, in many ways it may be easier and, at the same time, harder, to change 
the institutions and, at the same time easier, and yet harder to become a 
voice in the digital marketplace. The momentum is increasing and, like the 
whirlpool, Charybdis, can suck all in.

------------------------------------------------------
So, what can FOW do to actualize the hopes of Nick and others?

1) It can cease to be like the kid in the group standing on the edge of the 
high dive trying to find a way to get the others to jump off. In other 
words, show, don't tell. FOW must become a paradigmatic example of what 
could/should be done. Academics are followers for the most part when it 
comes to their safety. But they are like herding cats. Examples and success 
stories become the relevant coin in an institution that is traditionally a 
lagging indicator.

2) Individuals in FOW must identify those project which are significant 
opportunities and examples that are currently in place within The Academy- 
and their are many and the number is growing. FOW can not pretend that this 
idea is new or originates within FOW. In fact, there is a sense within FOW 
that what is being proposed will shake the core of The Academy, when, in 
fact, many of these ideas are extant and while they don't move the entire 
institution, no area of the university has that power with the exception of 
those areas heavily funded, such as biomed and technology.

3) FOW must figure out how to pull those segments of The Academy that are 
actualizing these ideas into FOW. FOW is, at this point in time, a lagging 
indicator itself and that must change.

best

tom


>From: ian glendinning <[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: Our Dreaming
>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:37:40 -0500
>
>alan, nick,
>
>when the aims of fow were restated the other day, i said i shared the
>"hopes" expressed there.
>
>my own blog is headed by my own manifesto. my mission to find some
>alternative to an "exclusively-objective, politically-correct, style
>of hyper-rationality".
>my area of interest arose beyond academe, in business, media and
>politics generally.
>
>i saw my dream in fow because i saw nick reclaiming the idea of
>rationality, with values beyond objectivity, and the idea of
>"education, education, education" at the root of everything else.
>
>ian
>
>On 3/24/07, Nicholas Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Dear Alan,
>>
>>                   I can respond wholeheartedly to your dream.  My life 
>>work
>>- to try to convince my fellow human being of the urgent need to 
>>restructure
>>academic inquiry so that it becomes rationally devoted to helping people
>>realize what is of value in life, for themselves and others - is inspired 
>>by
>>just such a dream.
>>
>>                               Best wishes,
>>
>>                                       Nick
>>www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: A.D.M.Rayner
>>   To: [log in to unmask]
>>   Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 9:36 AM
>>   Subject: Our Dreaming
>>
>>
>>   Dear All,
>>
>>   Nick clearly wants Friends of Wisdom to have influence in the world,
>>especially within the world of the Academy.
>>
>>   For the group to have such influence, there needs to be some kind of
>>common spirit underlying our diverse utterances, which may not necessarily
>>be a spirit of 'consensus' or 'conformity' - indeed it may be the converse
>>of conformity.
>>
>>   So I think there is a need to try to identify if any such common spirit
>>does indeed motivate all of us, despite and perhaps because of our outward
>>diversity of thought and expression. If we can identify this spirit, this
>>will help to put our disagreements into perspective and allow us to
>>recognise an underlying intention that may not be immediately apparent in
>>the language or logic or emotion that we use to convey this intention.
>>
>>   This morning I awoke again reflecting on what it is that I am so
>>passionate about, and how my passion verges on obsession, and why this
>>passion made me interested in joining a group calling itself 'Friends of
>>Wisdom' in the first place, and why some of the conversations I have 
>>engaged
>>in on this list have brought me such profound distress because of their
>>gross misrepresentation of my intention.
>>
>>   I had to admit to myself, grandiose and delusory as it may sound and 
>>may
>>be, that I do indeed 'have a dream'. I have had this dream all my life,
>>though the ways I have expressed it have been many and varied, in my
>>science, in my art, in my poetry, in my role as an educator, as a member 
>>of
>>my family. Often this dream has got in the way of my everyday 
>>relationships.
>>Often my everyday relationships have got in the way of this dream. But the
>>dream itself has everything to do with the question of 'how can I live, 
>>love
>>and be loved in this world?'
>>
>>   Here is my dream, as I might currently express it.
>>
>>   "I long to help liberate humanity and myself from oppressive modes of
>>thought and governance, and so release a deeper spirit of natural 
>>communion
>>and creativity."
>>
>>
>>   My feeling is that if as many of us on this list as possible could try
>>briefly to describe their dream (or indeed say that they have no 
>>underlying
>>dream) in this way, we really could understand one another better, and
>>perhaps pave the way for friends of wisdom to share real influence in the
>>world.
>>
>>
>>   Warmest
>>
>>   Alan
>>
>>

_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE