aluxon wrote:The discussion sounds interesting! What is a TP (please forgive my ignorance)?
Tell you what... if you figure out who they are, I'll introduce you! Otherwise, I have to respect their privacy.
aluxon wrote:In a system based on Elder knowledge, wouldn't the system by definition be somewhat confined to some beliefs generally held in common amongst the Elders?
When it comes to knowledge, the Elders value "acquisition" much higher than "possession", which becomes obvious when one starts poking around their Archive, with borderline research at every turn. It is a motif that I happen to like, and have practiced in the past as a teacher and tutor.
Because corporations have taken over every aspect of life, including education, new ideas are not profitable--the cost a LOT of money and produce little return on investment. Hence, education these days values "possession" of knowledge more than acquisition of new knowledge, to keep those profits up.
Elders seek new knowledge, based in natural consequences, which is what Dewey Larson did with is Reciprocal System of theory, and the main reason I was initially attracted to it. And you should see the crap he got when he proposed a new, revolutionary idea regarding space and time! Heck, I'm going through the same thing now with the Larson "fundamentalists" when I challenge one of Larson's ideas, such as using projective geometry instead of a pure, Euclidean perspective. They're about ready to burn me at the stake! These days, it comes down to this: Ignorance is profitable.
Dealing with the Elders can be somewhat troublesome, since they won't force any view on you. They won't TELL you anything. The Elders put forth a concept, such as "here is what I saw, here is how I quantified it... now go look and tell me what you see." They are more than willing to share their understanding of things, which is why they left the Archive, but if you find a better expression, there are still plenty of empty pages in the book for you to document it.
aluxon wrote:Or are you referring to a continuum? The standard University system is pretty much the same throughout the world without much of an alternative (and it is rigid). The guidepost would provide for opportunities for learning without the same level of rigidity; a minor amount of structure without forcing one to accept everything (or anything).
That's the idea. If you ever read Thea Alexander's book, "2150 AD", the concept is similar to that of their supercomputer, "CI" (Central Information). You are introduced to concepts, then go where your curiosity takes you.
Yes, we would have classes, but they aren't to force a view upon someone. They present one view of many. Yes, there would be 'testing', but the tests are to see how clearly you understood the material presented, not to see how well you conform to it.
aluxon wrote:So the purpose of a University would be to explore knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment and hopefully add to all three. To me, this sounds like some of the original purposes for which universities were organized. I personally like the enlightenment one and feel that this is largely missing in today universities (there may be a few exceptions). Of course, if you are building something from scratch, emphasis can be placed where desired.
Exactly. I don't see any other option to build from scratch, since the "system" is so firmly dug into place. A deceased friend of mine, Frank Meyer, was a professor at the University of Wisconsin. He put forth a very simple proposal to add a couple of lectures on the Reciprocal System to his physics classes, to introduce the concept of space and time being reciprocally related. He was almost drummed out of the University system! And what, over 2, 40-minute lectures? The existing system is so firmly entrenched, you're better off planting seeds in virgin soil.