pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 2 jan 04
and salient maybe...
Hi Lee, Lili, All...
Hmmm...
As I have gently kept my Hat from the ring here...I may
indulge a little on some of the fringe of the debate...
Below...and amid, and...short & fun too...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Love"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lili krakowski"
>
> >Is home schooling ideal? Maybe not. A kid has to be
lucky in her parents.
> >But then a kid has to be lucky in her parents no matter
what.
See the Book written by Alice Baily ( I think...) called
"The drama of the Gifted Child"...for one view of
some-of-the-matter...
Maybe see the old Film, "The Emerald Forrest" even...for
another...
> I think this is the essential point. People who do
choose to
> homeschool or send their kids to private schools have to
realize that they
> cannot protect their children, from the children of folks
who are not
> capable or don't not have the money to make these choices,
forever.
Usually, the 'protection' a Child would do best to have, is
from the unresolved anxieties (generally, 'emotions' ) of
the parents ( and or moreso even, the forms those anxieties
or emotions are likely to
assume), as, among other things, induce or teach the
religion of 'fear', enmotional abandonment, and emotionality
as being far more real
than possibilities of Love, calm, patience and self
posession. For, do anxieties ( and their justifications, in
practice and in 'words') not get demonstrated as far more
'real' than Love...?
And thus the Road to Hell is the (real) 'legacy' whose
'slipperyness' is proved by untold millions...
> We all live in the same society.
Only in the sense that say a Bird and a Fish and a burrowing
Mole or something, 'live' in the same Zoo...
Or...
We do not Live 'in' the same 'society'...not at all...
We may appear to move about in, or, to occupy cursorily some
common or contiguous
'space'.
And to relate in deed or other expression to certain
conventions, or to the appearnces of them, or as pass for
subscription,
refutation or indifference...but the
content and quality of ( the experience of ) that 'space',
and of those appearances
(and of the conventions) can, and will... vary a great deal.
As can and do the 'realities' which the (management of )
appearances may be taken to somehow represent...or occulate,
by their very mediating 'representation'.
Society is not composed of 'people', it is not composed of
'individuals'...it is composed of a management of those
agreements and acquiescences as tacitly make for a semblance
or an appearance of accord, or, it is the result as well, of
how appearances and agreements about them may be
managed...And thus, in that, of how appearances are
apprehended...or as well, if they are apprehended at all.
> If Timothy McVeigh and Binladin taught us
anything, it is that we
> can not isolate ourselves from the dispossessed.
We are all (already) long since 'dispossed' - and, innured
to what we may not anylonger discover in an attempt of
inventory to assay it. In this, in the varieties of
disposession, lay as well, varieties of isolation.
There is plenty of both, and, the nore if it there is, the
less seen it tends to be but for certain selected kinds of
it.
All the rest is virtually invisable.
Too...
Who was Mr. "McVigh"? - what did he (actually) do?
Do we know?
We may have some recollection of what we were told, yes...we
may have been satisfied to have been 'told' as well. We may
have been grateful even for being told.
But...
In what way did he 'teach' us anything? Let alone teach us
anything about 'isolation from disposessed'?
I do not know who he was, nor, am I satisfied I know 'what'
he actually did or did not do, to be able to distill for my
own edification some 'what' as I have been 'taught' for his
having done something...
Untill or unless I know (some more in depth descriptions
of ) what he did do, how am I to know
what it has taught me?
I can impose on it, some convenient to my own interests, of
'lesson' regardless of the facts, or of the actualities of
the event(s).
Many do just that...
The management of appearances...the acquaisence to the
(diorama of) appearances ( and, to whom an 'appearance'
shall be understood to mean one thing, or, another, or to
have been managed to 'mean' one thing or another)...
An acquiescence to 'appearances' as are
managed...maybe have more to 'teach' me...than does the
almost nothing I know about a so-called Mr. McVeigh, who, so
far as I can tell, was a player in a drama, in which the
management of appearances, and the management of the
apprehension of appearances, just might be the most salient
catagory of
instruction...
So too of the so called Mr. Bin-Laden.
So too of anyone...
Or anything...
One of the disfavors I have for 'school', is that it
inculcates (at the expense of all else,) the abdication of
one's common sense, and thence, an acquiescence
to... a subservience and ammenibility to...the manner
in which one's apprehension of appearances, and hence in
practice,
appearances themselves, has been and is being managed.
And, is itself, ( 'school') just such an (interesting
example of a
product of the management of an ) 'appearance'...
Seems to me...
Best wishes for the New Year...
Phil
Las Vegas
>
> --
> Lee In Mashiko, Japan
> http://Mashiko.us
> Web Log (click on recent date):
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
at melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
