Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote:
(I draw the line between "push" and "strike" such that if I hit the person that is a strike.)
|
I agree, but the question must be asked.
Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote:
Why is your goal "to achieve a system of understanding and explanation in terms that COMPLETELY NEGATE credibility as an issue"? To what end?
|
Because objectivity is not an end in itself, but is an essential perspective without which subjectivity is an equally dead end. In-Yo. Credibility is belief. You can believe in gravity or not -- it does not care nor does it change. Things in those terms are not subject to credibility -- they just are.
Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote:
If it helped someone do these things, then yes please continue. If not, it seems like you are just getting in the way or muddying the waters compared to "the jargon with the proven track record" - which seems odd to me.
|
I had this discussion with a good friend -- on a completely unrelated topic -- that we should study nature because of what it tells us about truth, not merely to see what we can make it do without catastrophic failure. But that verges into your forbidden area on this thread.
It has helped me to understand a great deal. Our students improve. I do not foolishly try to teach in these terms except for very basic concepts-- but understanding things in these terms directs how I teach, and so far with some success. I have no grander ambition than that. I cannot speak for anyone else.
I don't pretend that approaching things in this way is a be all-end-all. But it is a perspective that has been left wanting for development. If you or anyone feels I am trashing it -- one of YOU guys take it up and do better -- in these terms. Why? Not because I want it -- but because it should be done. I'll happily sit back and watch -- and not carp overmuch with undue criticism. Otherwise, quitcher griping.
