Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What can one dummy tell another about self-learnin

What can one dummy tell another about self-learning?

I often face the frustration of responders who find them selves confused by my words. This has led me to post my OP “Knowledge is a puzzle” (which I copy and place at the end of this OP)

I constantly study books written by authors who hold a critical view of the existing social status quo. The books I study are the books I write about and these essays are the ones I post. Thus my OPs are constantly contrary to the status quo world views. My OPs are essays that do not generally fit the puzzles that readers have been working on all their lives.

Thus when I throw a piece on the reader’s table it will almost never fit any of her puzzles. The reader who decides to respond generally does so after modifying the piece so that it will fit the puzzle that is familiar. The response the reader makes is then about the fragment of knowledge that has been sliced and diced to fit the wrong puzzle.

When I start reading a new author I am constantly facing total confusion as to what the author is saying. However, I do this so often that I have learned not to be frustrated because I know that if I just keep plodding along I will sooner or later begin to comprehend what the author is driving at. Of course, I can trust the author because I only choose the best that is around (or at least one that receives praise from many) whereas the reader of my essays does not have that comfort.

I discovered that few people know how to go about the process of learning a new domain of knowledge. When they are given a fragment of knowledge that does not fit into their puzzles that they have been working on all their life they do not know how to start a new puzzle. They had teachers to help them start new puzzles but they never learned how to start one of their own. Instead, they take the fragment of new knowledge and either tosses it out the window or they cut it up to fit their present puzzles.

What is needed, I think, is for young people to learn how to start new puzzles. Your teachers will never teach you how to do this, you must learn that your self or remain ignorant of new domains of knowledge the rest of your life. The reason many find my posts to be incomprehensible is because I am presenting a bit of knowledge that does not fit the puzzles that our teachers taught us.

---------------

Most everyone has played with jigsaw puzzles and recognize how we put such puzzles together. When we start a new puzzle the first thing we do is construct the frame. We gather all the pieces with one straight edge and slowly construct the outer perimeter of the puzzle.

Such is the case when we organize knowledge. When we begin to learn a new domain of knowledge in school our teachers help us set up the frame. They hold our hands while we construct the outside boundary and slowly fill in the image by adding new facts.

After we leave school if we want to become a self-learner and to become knowledgeable of new domains we will follow this same procedure but with a significant difference. We will have no teacher to supply us with the pieces of the puzzle. Especially difficult will be gathering the appropriate side pieces so that we can frame our domain. After this we might very well have to imagine the image of the puzzle because we will not have a teacher to help us ‘see’ what the domain ‘looks like’.

When we become a self-learner we will often find pieces of knowledge that do not fit our already constructed frames, when this happens we have two choices. We can throw away the new fragment of knowledge or we can start a journey of discovery in an effort to organize the construction of a new domain. The odd piece of knowledge is either trashed or we must begin a big effort to start construction on a new big puzzle.

I think that knowledge is easily acquired when that knowledge fits easily within one’s accepted ideologies. If we have a ready place to put a new fragment of knowledge we can easily find a place to fit it in. When the knowledge does not fit within our already functioning ideas that fact will be discarded unless a great deal of effort is made to find a home for that fragment of knowledge.

We are unable to move beyond our ideologies unless we exert great effort. No one can give us that type of knowledge; we must go out of our way to stalk it, wrestle it to the ground and then find other pieces that will complete a frame. That is why our schools do not try to take us beyond our narrow world because it is too costly in time and effort. Our schools prepare us to be good workers and strong consumers, anything beyond that we must capture on our own.

No one can give us that kind of knowledge. It can only be presented as an awakening of consciousness and then we can, if we have the energy and curiosity go and capture the knowledge of something totally new and start a new puzzle.

coberst
What grade do you think your "essays" would receive ?

Here's my assessment based on teaching experience at all levels.

High School Level ...C
University Level ...F

I invite opinion on grades from fellow readers.

Based on my experience of Teaching, when effort is graded and the worth of the student hinges on the grade, School becomes the death of desire and inspiration for those who are derided for their efforts.
Therefore dummies who perpetuate the system which then causes the students to judge each other and withdraw their efforts are the reason Some countries such as India and China have more honor students than the U.S. has students.

coberst-- Something you have not included in your -um- essay is the fact that wanting to learn, to be motivated to learn, to be inspired by an enthusiastic and able teacher are all far more efficient ways of passing along information than using a big stick and threatening with failure if seemingly useless facts are not remembered. Learning has to have a reason. Useless facts and unfounded conjecture can sometimes be fun but are ultimately uninspiring and boring.

You mention the difficulties of processing new learning. It can be difficult, but it can also be exhilarating to the teacher, the learner, or both. It all depends on the way it is approached- and education of any sort is best approached with an open mind and a positive attitude.

I will not grade the effort in spite of eccles' tempting offer.
I will say however that coberst STILL will not define his/her terms. (Such definition is also something that helps with learning, particularly new learning.)

Ellis,

This is all about coberst's self-justification for "going it alone". His hobby is unstructured intellectual dabbling in what he ridiculously describes as "the best books". He then lashes together a "collage" of quotations and comments for "display" on forums, just like a primary school "project" would be displayed on a wall. Such "projects" are of course the work of the child who has "let go of the teacher's hand", and stepping back to admire his work says to himself "what a good boy am I". (For coberst read "good" as "sophisticated critical thinker")

I think that one of the ways that our (American) educational system has failed us is that it has taught us only what to think and never how to think. Therein lay the rub. We have been taught that the ability to memorize sound bites and bumper sticker defnitions represents "real" learning.

I am an advocate of self-actualizing self-learning. It is a mistake to place our intellect in the attic with our year book when our school daze are over.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man must take up the task of Dutch uncle. I think of Socrates as being a Dutch uncle and I take him as my role model.

Does the one eyed-man man still have his five bedroomed house ?
If he is deeply concerned about education, maybe he should sell up and send the proceeds to educate poor third world kids rather than preach to a mythical "blind" audience. Most of his real audience has two-eyes.

But that never changes the complacent individuals who ignore the third world and concentrate on those who are addressing the system at a deeper level. Those who speak out regarding a system that continues to propagate complacency in favor of the achievement of the five bedroom house even if it means someone will be without a home, are invariably attacked by the ones who would demand such a system remain intact so that they will not have to give up what they have in convenience and the identification of self worth.

TT

If you mean coberst has failed to understand that being "self-critical" is antithetical to concepts of "self-worth" then I agree with you. All that Socratic nonsense about the pursuit of "knowledge" and "virtue" becomes vacuous from a meditative position involving "self dissipation" and holistic empathy. From such a position, the "self" is seen as a transient social construction whose nature shifts with ephemeral events. Such "truth" cannot be understood by an illusory "self".

Unlike coberst himself. his hero Bohm understood this point, hence his communism and banishment from the USA. In later years Bohm's philosophical activities became more "spiritual" than "political", but like his associate Krishnamurti who adressed the UN on the subject, his empathic message was of little value to those concerned with "self-integrity".

No it can't but the steps to understanding and wisdom are a lot like the child learning to walk. If the authority derides all attempts that are on the surface having the appearances of failure, then no possibility of gaining ground is seen or interpreted within the actions of growth.
But whether the message was accepted or not, if one does not recognize the nature of change and all of the seeds that are planted to create that change then what everyone wants to focus on is failure and then blame is turned toward the seeds of change as being inappropriate and without value before they have had the chance to mature and come to fruition.

I'm not a personal fan of his particular intellectual approach, nor some of the people he uses as the authority for his ideals, but I give him credit for his heart and his effort. He wants to see change because he sees the inevitability of change as the result of suffering and ignorance, and he like everyone else that tries to be a help to that change, does the best that they can.

Rather than flat out calling him a failure I like the way Ellis approaches his statements by asking for more, so that he can possibly see it from her point of view. Rather than taking a stand and being critical of everything from the personal point of view, one needs to stretch themselves to see things from a place of non-investment. Often, if you are too close to a problem, it is difficult to see a solution, and preaching that there is a problem doesn't really change anything when it is not universally experienced.

TT

I disagree with your assessment of coberst's social intentions. The fact that he never enters into discussion or participates in the threads of others indicates he is using this medium for an ego-trip.

The key issue is cobert's incessant supercilious claim to be a "critical thinker" and his exhortation for others to emulate him. Such behaviour has had him banned from several of the dozens of forums which he blitzes daily. Exactly the same lectures are given on each and the same responses are cut and pasted from his his response file.

If you think "giving him credit for his heart and effort" is going to change an obsessive-compulsive syndrome, rather than encourage it, good luck to you !

Deriding his effort only shows an intolerance in the personal perceptions, that the ego assumes in the outward obsessive tendencies to control the world around ones self.
I don't see one evil being greater than the other or less offensive.

Like I said, everyone does the best that they can. Not everyone runs at peak efficiency or potential if perfection is still the greater of all lesser illusions and not within every thought action and desire.

Rubbish !

This is a discussion forum, not a market place for soap-box preachers.

BTW Here's a typical response from another forum to his latest diatribe on "denial".

Well then, I'll take that to mean that all opinions are like assholes since everyone has one.

Or... that in a discussion, no value shall be determined toward any individual point of reference in that anything discussed shall be part and parcel to the discussion as a whole. That way it remains a discussion rather than a comparison of opinions and beliefs.

No. It means that a communicative "thread" is woven between participants such that each contributes to the whole and gains "something of intellectual interest" from the participation. It should not operate as a platform for an uncommunicative or incompetent self-seeker, nor should it be a substitute for therapeutic social chatter which might be found in a barber's shop or a geriatric lounge.

Well then, it will be what it is depending on the value each participant gives it rather than the value one participant gives it. Obviously not everyone feels the same way about something and whatever it is that each wants to give or offer toward the thread being woven thru or between participants couldn't be without the participants regardless of the value another puts on it.

For example, How else could you exercise your opinion without someone to give you something to think about and to comment. Since Coberst is the one who started the thread it would seem he supplied the opportunity that was necessary for you to express your authority and your particular idea of worth to his initial comment and or in this case your opinion and value judgment of the participant making the initial opening statement to the thread. Any further comments by the participating whole that is "THE GROUP" that the thread weaves thru is the building of dialogue.
Just because you don't like the way it goes or someone becomes un-responsive to your ideals or stated authority does not mean the thread has failed as a topic of discussion. Not all topics have an endless participation or enough energy about them to instill an immortal presence or un-ending interest.

If you are dissatisfied with Coberst for not meeting your judgment with a rebuttal or some kind of wisdom that meets your expectations then I'd say you need to get over it, rather than mandate a fact that Coberst needs to live up to your personal expectations. You can only be responsible for your own choices not everyone else. If you choose to suffer the effects of being without the control of manipulating the world around you, then you have become that ego self you mentioned that does not comprehend the Truth or the nature of reality.

How could you have stated your authoritative position of interest and knowledge regarding the assessment of Coberst's worth without Coberst? Obviously he is the key to your issue of contrast between right and wrong good or bad, intelligence and ignorance if it is going to be about Coberst and his ramblings/essays.

It's all about how you can see things, not about what you see from personal belief, and never has a majority in belief made something immortal in truth. So who cares how many people dislike Coberst. Obviously if someone needs something to complain about he is providing something for all of you who need that service..

TT

If it makes you feel better to argue that coberst "provides a service" as opposed to cluttering up dozens of forums with his pedantic sermons, that's fine by me. But note that your "service argument" would apply equally to religious fanatics or Nazi sympathizers. The fact that his material is a merely collage of pseudo-philosophy is irrelevant to the issue of his modus operandi of "post and run".

eccles
If it makes you feel better to complain about him that is fine by me.

It would and yet complaining about them does nothing to prevent them from existing.

Then it must be personal.

What is it really, that bothers you about him and his "post and run" mode of operation?

TT

I am bothered by "users" who pose as "debaters".

I am pleased I have given you ths opportunity to run your "personal complaint" argument, familiar to others on this forum.

Note that the inevitable consequence of us all moving to a position of "benign tolerance" is an ineffable transcendental state where we all shut up.

I like to look at it differently.
There is, being emotionally critical, and then there is constructive criticism.
One is personally invested to the point of losing ones own inherent desire to participate in the process because one is too busy looking at what the other person is doing. And the other is more of a multifunctional state where one is enlivened by the bigger picture and can acknowledge all the steps along the way with greater clarity.

We haven't even gotten to the examination of using (abusing) language to mask one's intent and obfuscate one's meaning. But we can't even discuss obfuscation without obfuscation. Using language like this makes one feel like one is doing science, which is not near so difficult as actually learning about science and actually practicing science.

It's a new game called "tin-like."

TT

The "constructivist criticism" mode has been attempted by many on numerous forums,(somebody counted he has posted on 283). Such criticism is ignored. G.I. Gurdjieff suggested "shock tactics" to "wake the sleeper from his circling thoughts", but I think the coma is permanent.

FF

There is no evidence that coberst understands the problems of applying the word "science" to "cognition". From your own study of Popper you will be aware of his dismissal of Freud's psychoanalysis as pseudo-science, yet our eponymous poster delights in Freud. The world abounds with overextension or blatant misapplication of the term "scientific" by those who would benefit from its associated kudos.(witness for example the terms "Scientology" and "Christian Science" as extremes).

As a published "experimental psychologist" (too long ago than I care to remember) I can guarantee that mimicing the "hard" sciences ultimately breaks down with the "personal equation" which is psychology's equivalent to the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle i,e. that observation of behaviour both interfers with that behaviour and usually cannot be extrapolated to the non-experimental (real-life) context.

Then walk away and leave it alone...

You are correct. We all should! My posts in this matter are now triggered by those like yourself who reinforce his obsessive-compulsive syndrome.