Nick,
Thanks for this summary.
Each distinct elevator pitch in the series will be tailored to address one of the following groups of change agents:
+ University Presidents,
+ Department Chairs
+ Faculty
+ Politicians
+ Students
+ Parents
+ General Public
Who wants to create the first draft of the first pitch?
With a set of clear messages in hand, we can communicate those messages through a variety of effective channels.
Let’s get the movement started!
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maxwell, Nicholas
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 7:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Campaign for Wisdom-Inquiry: Summary of Responses
Dear Friends of Wisdom,
Here is my attempt at a summary of responses to my request for ideas as to how a campaign for wisdom-inquiry might be got underway. I have decided to concentrate on responses that put forward suggestions as to how such a campaign might be conducted. (I give my reaction in brackets.) Please forgive my all too brief and inadequate summaries and responses. I would like to thank all those who have responded – especially those with helpful suggestions.
There are, by the way, at present 367 members of Friends of Wisdom. Should we not be able to get together to get our message across rather more effectively than we have done so far?
Lee Beaumont argues that universities cannot become wisdom based until they overcome being knowledge-based, so first we must rethink money so we can pursue wisdom. (The need for funding is certainly an important factor, but by no means the only one. Most academics today take something like knowledge-inquiry for granted quite independently of financial considerations, even those highly critical of our current economic system. We are also up against hardened intellectual prejudices. Getting the idea of wisdom-inquiry afloat hardly costs anyone anything – except the labour of campaigners, of course. It could be argued that effective rethinking about economic issues requires economics to put something like wisdom-inquiry into practice. Before we can rethink economics, we need wisdom-inquiry in
economics.)
Ian Glendinning argues that the key is to pick specific issues to target: the economy, for example, or governance. (Up to a point, I agree. The best way to get wisdom-inquiry afloat is to do it. But we also, surely, need to get the idea, and the arguments for, wisdom-inquiry better known and understood. As I see it, that is at present should be the key objective of the campaign: to get the urgent case for wisdom-inquiry much better known and understood.)
Bekir Buyukkocabas proposes that we need a group of people who will write texts and prepare posters and websites spelling out our message in a relevant way; we need “extended outreach to sponsors, local universities, and the public”. And Bekir says he will himself engage in the task. (Excellent.)
Alan Rayner declares that the wisdom-inquiry campaign is missing the point. (But I do not understand what Alan Rayner is talking about. It is, however, vital that humanity has in its possession institutions of learning well-designed, rationally designed and devoted to helping us learn how to make progress towards as good a world as possible – just that which we do not have at present, to our cost. This group has been founded to promote awareness of the need for wisdom-inquiry.)
Tom Abeles argues that wisdom-inquiry has nothing to do with climate change. (On the contrary, there is an appalling absence of serious discussion about what the world ought to be doing in response to the threats of climate change in the public domain. Climate scientists in particular, and academics more generally, because of their devotion to knowledge-inquiry, have proved to be incapable of stimulating such debate. Without it, there is little chance of our tackling the problem effectively and democratically.
Greg Samways makes what seem to me to be a number of excellent suggestions. In particular, we need, he says, a single point of contact from which everything hangs, and on which key messages are broadcast, and he suggests Google Apps and Google Sites. (At present we have a somewhat unsatisfactory website I set up a few years ago at http://www.knowledgetowisdom.org/index.htm . There is also a website I set up to provide information about universities, departments, institutions and groups which can be thought of as putting one or other aspect of wisdom-inquiry into practice, called “The Wisdom Inquiry Network: see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/win . I did not receive answers from those
I contacted to ask if they would like to join! )
Raffaele Pisano suggests that the battle needs to be fought inside the universities, and suggests we set up an EU endeavour, bringing East and West together. (Excellent, if it can be done.)
David Williams has proposed that we get in touch with research councils, scientific grant giving bodies, and try to transform decision-making processes, and decisions themselves, towards the kind of thing required by wisdom-inquiry. (Excellent, if it can be done.)
This email is becoming impossibly long. I must try to be briefer.
Douglas Rosenquist sings the praises of non-hierarchical seminars. Amsa Amin suggests we need to contact interested persons around the globe. Lee Beaumont suggests we use his excellent “bestthinking” as our platform. (Great to have a presence on it, but the effort to create awareness of, and ultimately establish, wisdom-inquiry needs its own platform, so it does not get lost among other, related projects, as Greg Samways for one has said.)
David Mick in an excellent contribution makes the point that wisdom-inquiry will only get underway when the elite universities, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, etc. take it up. (A preliminary step may be to bring about an intellectual revolution in philosophy – in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of inquiry more generally. Wisdom-inquiry is unlikely to be put into academic practice if the idea, and the arguments for the idea, have not been understood and appreciated. Perhaps we need to target elite academics – philosophers, scientists and others – some of whom of course may be at Harvard, Cambridge, etc.)
Greg Samways, in a second post, said we need to get through to the public, as well as the elite intellectuals. Zane Ma Rhea argues we need Wisdom studies and Wisdom education. (What matters, in my view, is to transform academia so that it becomes rationally designed and devoted to helping humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible by intellectual, technical and educational means – not quite the same thing as wisdom studies and wisdom education.) Lee refers us to http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement . (I agree wholeheartedly with the point that we ought to see ourselves all in this together.) Rafe Champion suggests we set people straight about Karl Popper. (How strange is, nevertheless, that Popperians, including Rafe, ignore or misrepresent my own work even though, as I have made clear, it can be construed as an improvement of Popperian views.) Alan Nordstrom argues academia should become a kind of people’s civil service – and subsequently supplies poetic inspiration. Ian argues that it is no good repeating the arguments for wisdom-inquiry: money is what makes the decisions in academia. We have to change the way academic decisions are made. (Yes, but we also have to get the argument for wisdom-inquiry more widely known about, understood and appreciated.) Ronald Barnett endorses Ian’s point. (And the point is valid, but it arises when it comes to actively transforming
universities and academic disciplines. Have we really got to that stage yet? In any case, social inquiry conducted within the framework of wisdom-inquiry – and it is here that the biggest change comes – might well find it easier to get funding than current knowledge-inquiry social research.) Greg makes much the same point, after referring to the RAE.
Richard Whitney reminds us of the crucial role that wisdom-inquiry education has. (Absolutely!)
Wiebina Heesterman asks some questions about whom we are addressing, what the obstacles are, and suggests we should address those in different disciplines separately. And she returns to economics. (But here, as it happens, there has been an upsurge of protest from students about the narrowness of the economics curriculum in universities. Could we get students across the board to protest at the damaging irrationality of much of academic work, as it is at present pursued and taught? My students at UCL, coming from other Departments, on occasions used to ask for “real education” – a modest request which would create turmoil among academic staff.)
I would like to thank all those who have responded. There is much here to think about.
Where do we go from here? I will try to make some suggestions in a second email, to be sent out in a day or two.
Best wishes,
Nick Maxwell